explain  the principle of fedaralism in the U.s constitution?
547403
Simple.  A group of previously independent states give up some of their power and decision making to a centralized body, agreeing to abide by the rules set by that centralized body.  In return, the states gain from joint defense and joint funding of key nationwide programs.
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
290147
It is my belief that the concept of "Division of Church and State" has been incorrectly interpreted and applied for many years. The founding fathers intended this separation to prevent things like a church being a branch of government (like the Supreme Court) which would have a final verdict on any law.
100338
Subsidiarity\nSubsidiarity is the idea that matters should be handled by the lowest competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, and the management of large organizations. Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism. \nThe word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. It is found in several constitutions around the world (see for example the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). \nIt is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. The principle was established in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, and is contained within the proposed new Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. \nCatholic social teaching \nThe principle of subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole. "Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle. \nThe principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between the perceived excesses of laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of totalitarianism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. \nQuadragesimo Anno \nIn the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius specifically said at paragraphs 79 and 80: \n79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.\n80. The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, rest
809700
people\n\n\n\n\nWe the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
781570
The supreme court's most important power as a branch of government is particularly for checks and balance.  Each branch is there to kinda keep the other two from getting too out of control.  It got it's power from the constitution that's where the branches of government were defined and where they're roles were defined.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
951131
In a nutshell, Federalism is the seperation of powers between a Federal, national government and a local government, as we have in the U.S., or it can be defined as the decentralization of powers between differnt levels of government, such as the national government has powers, the state or province has certain powers,  the individual counties or parishes have certain powers, and then the towns and communities have certain powers, the second definitioin is much better, though neither is perfect.
891044
Federalism is, of course, the division of sovereignty between two levels of government, viz. state governments and the central government (which is often,somewhat inaccurately, called "the Federal Government"). You should note that Americans basically invented Federalism, and they did so for historical reasons.\n\nYou need to know a bit about the history of the United States up to the points where Federalism was created. Basically, even through the Revolutionary War the United States were a collection of states which were all sovereign, but agreed to work together on a number of things (most importantly, armed opposition to the British) while keeping most powers to themselves. The United States didn't really have a central government, Congress was a committee that helped organize things among the states who could pack up and leave any time they wanted to.\n\nAfter Independence (and during the war), the failures of this weak confederation became very apparent. It was seen that a more powerful central government was needed; one that could tax on its own, raise its own troops, and would have its own bureaucracy (all things that the Continental Congress had to beg the states to provide).\n\nThe loosely organized party called the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, were heavily in favor of a strong national government that would have pretty much all the authority (see: unitary state). The Anti-Federalists, lead by Thomas Jefferson, wanted only a weak central government. These camps were familiar with history, ancient and modern, and looked at a number of other confederations throughout history, including some of the Greek city states and the Swiss Confederacy. They learned from the problems that other such governments had and beautifully solved many of them by the invention of federalism.\n\nIn this form of government, those matters which states can handle on their own are handled by the individual states. But those things which the individual states can't handle (national defense, diplomacy, interstate commerce, etc) the central government would handle. Thus, instead of handling all problems at the same level of government, you can handle problems at the level best suited for them.\n\nThat is the answer in a nutshell. Very importantly, as for (1) why federalism is important and (2) how it differs from democracy  consider the following analogy and I think that your understanding will be greatly augmented:\n\nNOTE: This great analogy is from commentator JonahGoldberg\nhttp://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200412011600.asp\n\nImagine you've got ten dorms on a campus and a student population divided up into the usual coalitions: stoners, partiers, jocks, and so forth on one side, and study geeks, exchange students and — no offense — nerdy Mennonites on the other. A purely democratic system where all students get to decide dorm policy could result in the tyranny of 51 percent of the students over 49 percent of the students. The party-hardy crowd could pass a policy permitting loud music and keg parties at all hours of the night. Or if the more academically rigorous coalition won, they could ban "fun" of any kind, ever. Similarly, if the administration imposed its own policy from above, you could have a system that makes no one happy.\n\nBut, if you allowed each individual dorm to vote for its own policies, you could have a system where some dorms operate like scholarly monasteries and other dorms are more fun than a pool party at James Caan's house. Theoretically, 100 percent of the students could live the way they want. Maximized human happiness!\n\nThe virtue of a federalist, republican form of government is that the more you push these decisions down to the level where people actually have to live with their consequences, the more likely it is they will be a) involved and interested in the decision-making process, and b) happy with the result. Federalism is also morally superior
799951
Federalist ->Sovereignty\nAnti-federalist ->Independence
556198
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It created a federal union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It replaced the less well-defined union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nDuring the Revolutionary War, the thirteen states first formed a very weak central government—with the Congress being its only component—under the Articles of Confederation. Congress lacked any power to impose taxes, and, because there was no national executive or judiciary, it relied on state authorities, who were often uncooperative, to enforce all its acts. It also had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before they could be amended and states took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, Congress was frequently blocked from making even moderate changes.
866146
Here are some facts: \n\nThe Constitution is the document that creates the federal government.  \n\nThe people that wrote it did so in their capacity as representatives of the states, not as representatives of the people. \n\nThe Constitution as written places no obligations or limits on individuals other than minimum age to serve in elected federal offices. \n\nThe two houses of the Congress were created to give the people control of one, the House of Representatives, and the other was for the states, the Senators. \n\nInference: \n\nThe 17th Amendment took away the representation of the states in the federal government they created. \n\nObservation: \n\nThis is why the federal government has gotten totally out of control. \n\nConclusion:\n\nIt needs to be repealed.
779035
federalism is the separation of powers between the states and national governments.\nbefore the Constitution, when the US was under the articles fo confederation the states had all the power and control on everything, this allowed for states to raise taxes on goods that were transported out of their state, so every state would tax the other states. However what federalism has done is it provides protection to the individuals.\nLook at before and after Constitution
208885
The framers of our Constitution created a strong federal government resting on the concept of "separation of powers."\n\nIn Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution, the Legislative Branch is created by the following language: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." \n\nArticle I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, . . .."\n\nUpon this elegant, yet simple, grant of legislative powers and rulemaking authority has grown an exceedingly complex and evolving legislative process--much of it unique to each House of Congress. \n\nFor more detailed information on how our laws are made and for the text of the laws themselves, you should refer to government internet sites or pertinent House and Senate publications available from:\n\nThe Superintendent of Documents \nU.S. Government Printing Office \nWashington, D.C. 20402.\nU.S.A.
588848
Do you mean Constitution? http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html\n\nHere you are.\n\nHere's a better one: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
792430
The Articles of Confederation didn't create a functioning nation, so the Constitution created a federal system with a unified currency, post, foreign policy etc., while letting the states decide less national matters.
510858
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution.\n\n"They [Senators and Representatives] shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same"