Explain the clauses in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution that have allowed the expansion of national government power
Article 1, Section 8 states that the US Congress shall have authority to delineate and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and support the common defense and general well-being of the USA however all these taxes should be applied uniformly all over the USA.
In fact, the tax compilation is the major power authorized to Congress by the US Constitution. The authority of tax compilation is a fundamental governmental structure outlined by the US Constitution. The US Congress controls the money. It also has the power to impose taxes however and it should be uniform for all the states. The creators of the US Constitution perhaps listed the taxing power mainly atop the Congress`s enumerated powers as they highly noted that one of the major problems of the other Articles of Confederation was that its description of Congress did not have the power to impose taxes, and consequently didn`t have the power to do fiscal activities significantly.
Bill of Rights
Professor Van Alstyne stated (1986), “it is difficult to imagine a more consequential subject” an assessment supported by the remarkable number of 20th century legal researchers. Perhaps even more strange has been the keenness of US Supreme Court Justices to strengthen their judicial statement on the issue with extra-judicial details. For instance, following his retirement from the bench and just prior to his demise, Justice Frankfurter published writing to the legal the people a detailed “memorandum” on “inclusion” in the Harvard Law Review, compile case quotations and other material to support his own ideal solution to the matter. Some few years afterwards, Frankfurter`s great fighting colleague, Justice Black, openly reacted in his Carpentier Lectures, breaking “a longstanding rule of not speaking out on constitutional issues” (Warren, 1968). Moreover, in two James Madison Lectures given twenty-five years separately-each appropriately titled “The Bill of Rights and the States”-Justice Brennan delved upon his own suggested solution to the incorporation conundrum.
The Bill of Rights can be termed as simply an additional limitation on federal power. The Federals have no legal power to violate on the free speech rights since that power is not assured or granted – not for the reason that the First Amendment hints a right to free speech. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was implied to be outmoded and inappropriate. The major aim to restrict federal powers was not the listing of rights it was aimed to limit, enumerate, and to delegate powers that was implied to keep the Federals from getting out of hand. As a result of such a scheme, the US government does not have what is at times called as “plenary” or general legislative power, since the majority of US states carry out. Indeed, it is for the reason that US States do have plenary law enforcement or legislative power that is more significant that their powers are clearly restricted by a bill of rights.
In the 1920 US Supreme Court case Rhode Island v. Palmer and US v. Lopez, quoting the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland stated: “The [federal] government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it . . . is now universally admitted.”, and it referred the case Gibbons v. Ogden for the proposition that “The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated” and further stating: “The US Constitution directs this ambiguity by denying the US Congress a plenary police power that would empower performing of every kind of legislation”.
However, it might be true that the US Congress has at the present times acquired quite large, plenary, lawmaking power of interpreting its power to “regulate commerce” quite extensively. Moreover, consequently the Bill of Rights has played a significant part than it would have, had the feds not surpassed its narrow allocation of powers.
Nevertheless, in the new constitutional proposal, not only did the US Congress have no power to violate many rights, it also did not have the power to prevent many kinds of rights contravention, like murder. Hence, a ruling of federal government proscribing murder would have been as illegal as one proscribing the drugs. This is one of the rationales it is illogical to apply the Ninth Amendment to various states however it is pertinent to relate it to the feds: the unlimited nature of the “power” of the Ninth Amendment characterize with the limited power scheme of the US government. Given that the feds only have limited powers, this implies there are an unlimited set of “rights” that help to control power: specifically, everything the feds are not empowered to do, is like a “right” or restrain on what it can carry out. However, since the US states do have plenary legislative power, a tangible list of rights – limitations on this broad range of powers – seem sensible, however not an unrestricted list of rights as in the case of the Ninth Amendment of power and an unlimited list of limitations on power divergence with each other it does not seem right.
How US Constitution of Article 6 supremacy clause plays a role, and which amendment in the bill of right is intended to act as a countering force to restrict expansion of national government power.
The new US Constitution noted that the debts of the past government under the Articles of Confederation were still applicable. If a state law is in denial with the federal law, federal law must succeed.
Article 6 is known as the “supremacy clause,” and states that the US Constitution and the laws and agreements with the federal government are supreme in the land. Whilst state courts have the power of state laws, the federal courts can intervene and direct alterations if the state laws defy Federal law.
The impact of the New Deal on Federalism
The impact of the New Deal on the formation and functions of US fiscal federalism employs a broad database on inter-governmental financial flows. It is noted that the New Deal permanently transformed the development of American federalism and did this mostly through the extensive initiation of a financial means that had noticed only reasonable application earlier: Intergovernmental funding.
The launching of major funding programs in a form that entailed close collaboration between federal and state authorities pointed the conclusion of a period in which various hierarchies of the government worked with a high level of freedom. To relate the terms of the political analysts, the people progressed from a system of “coordinate” federalism, in which the different hierarchies of government workings in comparatively independent fields, to one of “supportive” federalism, in which there is much more allocation of fiscal operations and better relationship amongst levels of government in the management and financial support of public programs.` Thus, the New Deal lay down American federalism on a new path that has brought better relationship amongst various hierarchies of government its legacy is distinctive.
Much of the work has entailed the cautious recording of the pertinent data on public expenses, revenues, and Intergovernmental fiscal flows. This, as is a complex business entail some critical issues of definition, timing, and the apportioning of expenses and revenue data. Nevertheless, when correctly assembled and explained, the data shows a remarkable development of the arrangement of the public funds in the USA over the course of the 20th century.
Whilst the growth in importance of the central government is a key aspect of the economic landscape, it does not come mainly to the detriment of state and local governments. It is rather part of the development of the public sector all together and the extension of public tasks into many new functions, comprising of a key contribution in social insurance and the help of needy families. Many of the programs generated throughout the New Deal and undoubtedly much of the new “spirit” of supportive federalism that it launched were not transitory in temperament they have become critical aspects of fiscal federalism in the USA over the rest of the century. It shall be argued that without the New Deal, the course of American federalism would probably have been quite dissimilar from that which so far have experienced.
Alstyne, William W. Van (1986). Foreword to Michael Kent Curtis, No State Shall Abridge: The fourteenth Amendment and The Bill of Rights, at ix.
Friendly, Henry J. (1965). The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure, 53 CAL. L. REV. 929, 934.
Warren, William C. (1968), Foreword to Hugo Lafayette Black, A constitutional faith, at x-xi Hugo Lafayette Black, A Constitutional Faith, at xvi- vii, 34-42.