why is the unitary system least effective from the federal and confederate system?
540146
b/coz in unitary system there is too much centralization.
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
1091900
Nullification was the theory that a state had the ability to nullify - declare invalid - a federal-level law. So when the national government instituted a tariff, Calhoun told South Carolina that they could simply refuse to pay it.\n\nThe point here was more than just the tariff - it was about states' rights. In the Civil War the North said that the Union was supreme and the states had signed away their rights. The South, however, said that the union was voluntary, and the states could come and go as they pleased. So similarly, the North believed that this "Tariff of Abominations" (as the South called it) must take effect nationally, while the South said that it was South Carolina's choice to follow or ignore the national law. To them, South Carolina was the authority, and the United States just a loose grouping. This idea of a "loose grouping" would later become the Confederacy.
411729
Federal Republic does better than either one of those you listed, due to the divided and difused power that the various levels of government has so that power doesn't become concentrated in one area
919901
It has very much to do with how the United States was formed - from small units to a larger country instead of the conventional way where a nation is split into multiple provinces. This division of a nation into a central and local government is known as FEDERALISM.\n\nTake China for example, which uses provinces. The nation was united under emperor Qin Shi Huang and divided into multiple provinces, in order to more efficiently govern the nation. Here, the central government did the dividing, and hence kept as much power as possible to themselves.\n\nIn contrast, the United States (the name itself is suggestive) upon its formation consisted of 13 colonies, which united under a common cause to achieve independence. None of these states wanted to give up their power, contributing to the failure of the first union under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nThis was finally solved under the Constitution, which we continue to live under today. The basic model, however, persists, where the states have their own sphere of power that the central government (often misleadingly called the "federal government") cannot infringe upon. This does not exist under the province system where the central government is supreme in all matters.
945147
This was established shortly after the Articles of Confederation. A large number of northern states lagged behind the population of the South. Whites in the South then outnumbered the number of whites in the north. When it came to determining representation in the United States Congress, the southern states wished to count their slaves as well which would give them a largely disproportionate representation. The northern states argued that their state of life-long servitude made them less than men, and to count them as a man would undermine the entire reason for a slave system in the first place, thus opening the way for the radicals already calling for abolishment of slavery a hole to maneuver their agenda through Congress. The southern states, not wishing to give up any comfortable lead in the House then made a compromise that every slave would count as 3/5 of a man. This still gave southern states their majority (later to change despite large number of slaves) while giving northern states the breathing room necessary to enact legislation that was in their own interest.
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.
222824
Because Federal Law is above state law.  States can not create laws that conflict with the constitution.
708049
The Confederate States of America
688133
The Constitution is intended as a framework upon which the nation can build a legal system.  It's a wonderful thing.  Read it.  (You can get a free copy from the Cato Institute)\n\nThe only thing better is the Bill of Rights.\n\nMy least favorite Amendment is the 18th, but it's okay 'cos the 21st set that right!
149586
There is a new movie out right now about this: CSA.  It is a documentary about life in the US after the South wins, and defeats the North, so that the whole country is run by the South (rather than having two separate countries, a different scenario of a Southern victory.)\n\nThe premise of the movie is that the differences would be surprisingly small.\n\nIt is hard to know how things would be now.  Perhaps of the CSA had been a separate country, it would have faced an eventual and successful slave revolt (funded and supported by the remains of the Republican party in the North) and the CSA would be known as New Uhuru, or something.
210357
Because of the way the US evolved as a nation. When you look at the US during the revolutionary War, they were more a group of 13 small nations fighting for a common cause than one nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, they needed a law passed by 9 of the 13 to be in force. The states had just fought a war to get rid of one large government, they didn't want another one.\n\nBut they saw they needed to get things done, so the Constitution of the United States was passed by the states which was a compromise. In the Constitution, some powers are reserved for the federal government, and some for the states. \n\nThe United States is a big nation- some things are better done locally. If you have an issue with the education your child is getting, do you want to have to go through the US government to get a definitive answer ? A local school board would be better.\n\nAnd also because the US is so large and values vary from state to state, it's beter to have some laws at the local level than at the national level. Take for instance, the death penalty. Most people in New England are against (or at least not strongly in favor of) the death penalty. In the south, capital punishment is almost universally approved. So the people in New England and the South can both have what they want in their laws without interference from the Federal government.\n\nSometimes (and some would argue usually) democracy works best locally. Foreign affairs, imports, defense, security- those are things better left to the federal government.
315608
When the framers decided to declare independence the only government that they had known was the oppressive monarchy of England.  When they set up the first government they wanted to get as far away from that structure as they could, which is why they created a very very weak central government, with most of the power vested in the states.  There was no central executive or judicial branches, and only a unicameral legislature, with essentially no power.  After they saw what a mess this created, with no regulation of commerce among the states; different currencies for different states; states discriminating against citizens of other states; and having nothing 'united' about the states at all; they realized that a change was necessary.  Experiencing these two extremes of the government, along with help from philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, showed them what a federal government had to have the power to do, but at the same time showed them what the federal government could not have the power to do.  It was the perfect 'happy medium' from the two far extreme possibilities.  There is no other way that the government could have remained essentially unchanged for the past 200+ years.
826542
How it is that people here think that the Electoral College gives smaller states the same influence as larger states? The more population a state has, the more electoral votes it receives. So California has many more electoral votes than a small state. The electoral college in no way gives small states equal power. I agree that if it is to remain it should be made to truly reflect the will of people, with electors divided within the state to match the popular vote. Then, when you have an almost 49/51 popular vote the 51 does not get all the votes when that is not how half the populace felt.\n\nFYI - The purpose of the electoral college was because Congress wanted to elect the president without any  input from the people. This was a compromise that ensured they could overrule the people if so desired, since the electors in the electoral college do NOT have to go along with the popular vote. It is just one step removed from a dictatorship.
1163917
I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure that rule only applies to Louisana because they have a different legal system there then the rest of the country. It’s called the Louisiana Civil Code; it’s similar to the Napoleonic Code. It’s the only state in the union with this system.
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
848875
basically the purpose of the supremacy clause is to ensure that  the federal law is the "law of the land'. \nFederalism allows for the seperation of powers;  state and federal. sometimes these powers come into conflict with each other. The supremacy clause resolves the conflict by basically saying that no state law or state constituiton or state judge can rule against the constitution of the US. \nThis was previlant when the south attempted secceed from the union based on their state laws. However Federal law trumps state law, it would have been unconstitutional for them to seceed from the union. \nState law cannot "outrank" Federal law.