Category Archives: Federalism

During a press conference to update members of the press on the ongoing situation in Manipur, the head of Manipurs state police made an unusual statement. According to the officer, Article 355 of the Indian Constitution was imposed in the state, and as a result, the Union government assigned a security advisor to the state government.

What is Article 355, and how is it imposed under the Indian Constitution?

Article 355 is found in part XVIII of the Indian constitution which contains emergency provisions that are meant to be used in extremely rare circumstances. This section of the constitution empowers the Union government to declare a state of emergency (through Article 352) or, in other cases, Presidents Rule in a particular state of the Union (through Article 356).

355. It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

A study of the bare provision of Article 355 reveals that it imposes a duty on the Union government to protect states in the event of external aggression and internal disturbance. The article also requires the Union government to ensure that the government of each state in the Union is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

Advertisement

Advertisement

To understand the scope of Article 355s application, we need to examine the intention of the constitutions drafters when they decided to include this article in it.

Article 355, as it currently exists, was not in the 1948 draft constitution, and was only added in September 1949 (as draft Article 277A). It was inserted with the objective of providing a legitimate ground for the application of Article 356 of the constitution, which allows the Union government to issue a proclamation of Presidents Rule in a specific state.

Because imposing Presidents Rule in a state is considered an extreme measure, the drafters of the constitution felt this insertion was necessary. It is thought to be so because it has the effect of removing a states ability to govern itself. It is important to note that when Presidents Rule is proclaimed in a particular state, the Union government assumes the authority to govern that state, including the ability to make decisions that would normally be made by the state government. Furthermore, the imposition of Presidents Rule transfers powers from a states legislative assembly to the national parliament.

Because the drafters of the constitution recognised the broad power vested in Article 356, it was thought necessary to include another article to ensure that the imposition of Article 356 would not be viewed as an arbitrary exercise of the Union governments authority. Because of this recognition, the drafting committee inserted Article 355 into the constitution.

For these reasons, it is clear that the constitution contemplates the imposition of Article 356 as flowing from the duty imposed on the Union government by Article 355.

Circumstances under which Article 355 can be used

The constituent assembly debates show that the drafters of the constitution were concerned about the abuse of the emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the constitution. In one instance, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is quoted as saying that the powers granted by Articles 355 and 356 should be used with caution. He stated during a debate of the constituent assembly in August 1949 that the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter. If at all, they are brought into operation, I hope the president, who is endowed with all these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces.

As a result, it is understood that emergency provisions, such as Articles 355 and 356 of the constitution, can only be imposed in emergent situations. This appreciation has ensured that the provisions in Part XVIII of the constitution include constitutional safeguards that help ensure they are not abused arbitrarily by authoritarian actions from New Delhi. When these safeguards are violated, citizens have the right to petition the courts to test those actions against the principles enshrined in the constitution.

The mysterious case of application of Article 355 in Manipur

Given this understanding of Article 355 and the scope of its application, it is important to consider whether the article can be independently applied by the Union government in a specific circumstance.

In the past, courts have ruled on the constitutionality of legislation based on an examination of the duty imposed on the Union government by Article 355. This includes the cases of Naga Peoples Human Rights Movement v. Union of India (1997) and Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005).

However, it is important to consider the argument that the Union government cannot use Article 355s independent application to intervene in matters that fall under the purview of a state government. This argument is supported, in particular, by Justice Sawants opinion in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). Justice Sawants opinion held that the duty conferred on the Union government by Article 355 is a justification for the imposition of Articles 356 and 357, rather than an independent source of power that the Union government can use to interfere with the functioning of a state government. Instances such as the one in Manipur therefore present a questionable application of Article 355.

The argument is further supported by the constitutions recognition of Indias federal character. It is important to keep in mind that allowing the Union government to use Article 355 on its own to intervene in the domain of a state government would be detrimental to federalism in the long run.

To make matters worse, the imposition of Article 355 in Manipur is particularly troubling due to how this was communicated to the public. An elected MLA a member of the ruling party tweeted that Article 355 had been implemented in the state, which was an indication that it had been imposed. Following that, the head of the state police suggested during a press conference that Article 355 was imposed.

It is important to note that, as of late Saturday night, no formal order has been issued by the Union government to impose or invoke Article 355 in Manipur. This opens up two possibilities. Either the statements made by the two responsible public officials are incorrect, or the Union government secretly imposed Article 355 in the state without making the decision public. If the latter is correct, it raises serious concerns because such a decision, made in the absence of a legal, published announcement, may be considered unlawful.

Much remains to be seen in the development of this case, and it is critical that we pay close attention to how it develops, given the broad implications for our democratic society.

Jade Lyngdoh is a Constitutional Law honours candidate at National Law University, Jodhpur, where he has been a Meta India Tech Scholar. He contributes to The Wire, and is interested in the intersection of technology law and policy and human rights.

See the original post:

The Mysterious Case of the Imposition of Article 355 in Manipur - The Wire

Jalandhar (Pb), May 6: Union minister Jitendra Singh on Saturday claimed non-BJP state governments are not exercising accountability and allowing pilferage and wastage of central funds.Addressing a press conference here as part of campaigning for the by-poll, he said the Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government has been accusing the Centre of holding back funds for the state.However, the matter of fact is that the earlier grants obtained by the state government from the Centre were never utilised for the purpose for which they were meant, Singh, the Minister of State for Personnel, said.The central grants were used for their own priorities, and now for the release of further funds from the Centre when utilisation certificates (UCs) are being sought, they are unable to produce the same, he added.Many of the central grants instead of being used for development projects are being used for self-publicity through advertisements in newspapers and other media, and for organising extravagant programmes for the publicity of the AAP leaders, the minister said.Singh said non-BJP state governments are not exercising accountability, whereas in BJP-ruled states, there is absolute accountability and answerability to the central high command and Prime Minister Narendra Modis welfare schemes are seriously followed up and accounted for.Drawing another parallel, he said in the non-BJP states, not only do they allow the pilferage and wastage of central funds, but the schemes are also not implemented seriously, and they do not hold themselves accountable.The Union minister also expressed concern about growing lawlessness and state of anarchy in the state of Punjab, and vowed that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is committed to restore the ethos of brotherhood, nationalism and mutual harmony among the people in the state.Talking about the Delhi government, Singh said nothing can be more unfortunate than the fact with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ruling the city, nearly three or four ministers are behind bars facing CBI and ED charges of corruption and misappropriation of funds.He said Modi had envisioned developing such an administrative ecosystem for a developed India, which has zero-tolerance for corruption, but the AAP-led government in the state of Punjab has been creating roadblocks towards creating such a corruption free ecosystem by delaying implementation of transformative reforms undertaken by the BJP-led central government.He said it is in the interest of the people to benefit from the central funds which are very meticulously provided by the Modi government.The Modi government has always followed the policy of cooperative federalism and also increased the state government share of funds. This is quite in contrast to what was happening during the UPA-run central government where the Gujarat government led by the BJP was always put to all kinds of intimidation and harassment by the then UPA-led central government and false CBI cases were filed which later could not be proved, the minister added. (Agencies)

See the rest here:

Non-BJP State Governments Not Exercising Accountability, Allowing ... - Daily Excelsior

On a pleasant Sunday morning last August, The Times of Indias Happy Streets on Anna Nagar Second Avenue had an important visitor. Just when the first beams of the rising sun filtered through the canopy of the avenue trees, chief minister M K Stalin joined people who sang, danced and played games on the road. Wearing a red T-shirt, tracks and sneakers, Stalin walked and cycled the stretch, shaking hands with residents, playing table tennis and badminton with them, and giving them fitness tips. I wake up at 5am, he told them. I stay young because I exercise. Two months later, Stalin told the DMK general council that he was having sleepless nights. I wake up with the worrying thought of whether our party seniors, cadres or ministers have said or done something wrong. This is giving me sleepless nights. That must be tough on a chief minister who wakes up early for day-long exercises that are more than physical. Its not the opposition, the governor or the Centre thats giving Stalin a headache; his pain points are within his party and the government. On the governance front, Stalin has made some definitive strides. He has let his finance minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan to adopt some strong and unpopular fiscal measures to salvage the states economy and put it on the road to the one trillion-dollar Tamil Nadu destination. While powering this journey are the engines of manufacturing automobiles, electric vehicles, footwear, textiles and information technology/ startups, the governments policy seems to ensure that the vehicle of growth goes beyond the capital city to provide jobs and opportunities for smaller towns and the states hinterlands.The governments policies and programmes to take education and health to the peoples doorsteps have made a good start, the chief ministers public outreach programme has set an example for his ministers. While continuing with some coffer-draining doles, the government has been able to keep its focus on welfare measures. But this will be a trickier job when it moves into the third year that demands further fiscal discipline, and the next two when the ruling DMK prepares for another election. On the political front, the opposition AIADMK has not been much of a problem for the ruling party, but it has been spending more time on verbal duels with the governor and the Centre defending its Dravidian model of governance and federalism. The national social justice movement, which Stalin seeks to lead, would be a front that pushes this agenda. Stalins bigger problems have come from his own flank. Some of the government moves such as amending labour and liquor rules backfired (some blame the bureaucracy for it). Dealing blows to the partys attempts at an image makeover, a minister slapped a party councillor in public, another threw a stone at a party member who delayed bringing him a chair, many others have made speeches that embarrassed Stalin. Just when he thought he had disciplined the rogue elements came the PTR tapes audio recordings that BJP state president K Annamalai released that implicated the finance minister as speaking about the chief ministers family members son Udhayanidhi and son-in-law Sabareesan amassing wealth. The authenticity of the tapes may never be proved, but they have triggered discussions on corruption. Good governance will let Stalin bask in the glory of his governments performance as he faces the next election, but anything wrong done by anyone in the system will also fall on him. If it doesnt rain, I will be blamed, Stalin said at the October general council meeting of the DMK. As the opposition waits for its thunder, Stalin can expect a flood of allegations. As he sets sail towards the coming years, Stalin may not be able to stop the rain, but he should be able to plug the leaks.

Originally posted here:

Two years of Stalin government in Tamil Nadu: Two steps forward - Times of India

Topic: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the JudiciaryMinistries and Departments of the Government;

2. What is the issue of gubernatorial inaction in the legislative process and how does it affect federalism and democracy in India? Discuss the measures that can be taken to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the functioning of governors. (250 words)

Difficulty level: Moderate

Reference: The Hindu ,Insights on India

Why the question:

The article discusses the issue of pending bills and the role of governors in the legislative process. The author argues that governors in some Indian states have been delaying or refusing to give their assent to bills passed by the state legislature, thereby impeding the legislative process.

Key Demand of the question:

To write about role of governor in giving/withholding assent to bills passed by state legislature and measures needed to resolve them.

Directive word:

Discuss This is an all-encompassing directive you must debate on paper by going through the details of the issues concerned by examining each one of them. You must give reasons for both for and against arguments.

Structure of the answer:

Introduction:

Begin by giving context about gubernatorial inaction and article 200.

Body:

First, write in detail about the various options with the Governor with respect to a bill passed by the state legislature.

Next, write about the drawbacks on indefinitely sitting on the bill (pocket veto) and issues arising from such action.

Next, write about the possible solutions to the above issue.

Conclusion:

Conclude by writing a way forward.

See the article here:

What is the issue of gubernatorial inaction in the legislative process ... - Insights IAS

WASHINGTON, April 28, 2023 The World Banks Board of Executive Directors today approved $100 million in financing for the Nepal Quality Health Systems Program operation.

The Program will improve the quality of healthcare services and increase the coverage of health insurance and enhance the capacity of the healthcare system to prepare for and respond to health emergencies in Koshi and Gandaki provinces.

By prioritizing and investing in health, Nepal can reap multiple benefits including improved health outcomes, increased productivity, and economic growth, said Faris Hadad-Zervos, World Bank Country Director for Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The World Bank supports Nepals goal to put quality at the core of health system policy and planning and service delivery.

The Program will be implemented by the Ministry of Health and Population with the coordination of the Health Insurance Board at the federal level, and provincial and local governments in Koshi and Gandaki provinces to help achieve the strategic objectives of Nepals Health Sector Strategic Plan, 2022-2030. These include enhancing efficiency and responsiveness of the health system, promoting sustainable financing and social protection in health, and promoting equitable access to quality health services.

The Program supports the implementation of federalism and builds on Nepals first Program for Results in the health sector to address the challenges of access and quality and to build a resilient public health sector, said Dr. Feng Zhao, Practice Manager for Health, Nutrition and Population, South Asia Region. The results achieved under this Program have the potential for scale-up to other provinces.

The financing for the Program is complemented by a $3.84 million grant from the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response (HEPR) Trust Fund. The HEPR Trust Fund supports eligible countries and territories to improve their capacities to prepare, prevent, respond, and mitigate the impact of epidemics on populations.

Contacts

KathmanduAkash Shresthaashrestha9@worldbank.org

Washington, DCDiana Chungdchung1@worldbank.org

More here:

World Bank Approves $100 Million to Strengthen Nepal's Healthcare ... - ReliefWeb

Federal transfer payments are at the heart of the Canadian federation. They ensure critical public services are equitably funded right across the country and account for roughly one-fifth of total provincial revenues. For lower-income provinces, they rise to as high as one-third of the total.

While reaching agreements and enacting reforms is never easy as recent federal-provincial wrangling over health transfers demonstrates kicking the can down the road is no way forward.

But thats precisely what the federal government has been doing missing opportunities to seriously explore reforming the federal transfer payments system.

Recent reports suggest that the federal government quietly extended the current equalization formula first adopted 15 years ago until 2029. This is yet another example of the failure of the government to seriously examine whether our system of federal transfers needs a tune-up in the face of growing challenges.

Many of these challenges especially an aging population, mounting health-care pressures, climate change, economic uncertainty and energy transitions are already having an effect on government finances in Canada.

They will only become significantly more pressing over time. Local governments are playing an increasing role in delivering services and infrastructure but with limited resources. They should be incorporated more fully in the conversation about the future of fiscal federalism.

Thats because getting reform right is critical.

To appreciate this, consider the challenge posed by an aging population alone. Statistics Canada projects the share of Canadians over 65 will increase from less than one-fifth today to nearly one-quarter by 2050.

Health-care spending could rise by the equivalent of roughly three per cent of GDP. For context, if funded entirely from tax increases, that would require increasing the GST by approximately 10 percentage points.

With the share of Canadas population participating in the labour force falling rapidly, the implications for economic growth and the potential for even wider fiscal inequalities among provinces are no less dramatic. Overcoming this will involve all levels of government in Canada.

An issue that hits closer to home for some Canadians is that of perceived fairness.

A striking example of grievances about the fairness of fiscal federalism is the debate about the federal equalization program, which has faced criticism from wealthier provinces since its inception in 1957. Those criticisms are especially prominent in Alberta today.

In the lead-up to the upcoming Alberta election on May 29, Alberta is strongly expressing its concern that the federal government extended the formula another five years. It offered a detailed suggestion for reform.

Modernizing our fiscal arrangements is necessary to overcome some of these considerable challenges. Our governments should be willing to have important conversations on this issue.

To be sure, the latest federal budget made some adjustments. It detailed more than $46 billion in boosted federal health transfers to provinces and territories.

Much of this is allocated equally across provinces, according to their population. Some, however, is allocated as fixed payments independent of how large a province is. This provides considerably more support to smaller provinces that face disproportionate challenges from the aging population.

But much more is needed in many other areas, and all governments must work together.

This is especially true for challenges that transcend the ability of any individual government to address, many of which like climate change are becoming more significant by the day.

These issues will place a lot of strain on Canadas highly decentralized system of government. Who should do what, and who should pay for what, are central questions that we need to get right and that we need to adapt when necessary.

A list of specific reforms that Canada should adopt would be helpful, but it isnt obvious what those are.

From changes to equalization to tax point transfers, health-care funding, municipal infrastructure support and a more fundamental rethinking of the system of fiscal federalism that we have today, there are many details to work out and trade-offs to consider.

Historically, mounting pressure led governments to pursue deep dives into our fiscal systems and enact evidence-based reforms. From the Rowell-Sirois Commission in the late 1930s to the 2006 OBrien Report on equalization, this has been a common approach.

Canadas intergovernmental and fiscal arrangements have confronted and successfully overcome unique social, political, economic and fiscal pressures over more than 150 years. Today, governments can work together with academics, practitioners and indeed all Canadians to do just that once again.

Avoiding the challenges wont make them go away.

Charles Breton of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Colleen Collins of the Canada West Foundation and Steve Orsini of the C.D. Howe Institute contributed to this article.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

Read the original here:

Canada's federal transfer payment system badly needs a tune-up - The Conversation

On the 50th year of the basic structure doctrine that restricts the power of Parliament to alter the fundamental features of the Constitution, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran told The Indian Express the doctrine is the only safeguard against a majoritarian government.

Ramachandran, former Additional Solicitor General of India, was once a critic of the doctrine. Now a qualified critic, Ramachandran said changes to secularism, federalism and equality will be the next aspects tested against the basic structure doctrine.

Today, the basic structure doctrine, which I have earlier criticised on grounds of pure theory, is the only safeguard against amendments that could do away with the secular nature of the Constitution. Also, with politics becoming increasingly presidential in style, the doctrine could stand in the way of a wholesale switchover to a presidential form of government.

Why have your views changed?

You can call me a qualified chastened critic of the doctrine now. Let me explain that. In 2000, the era of strong majorities seemed to have decisively ended. So in that context, I felt that the days of brute majoritarianism were over. Major constitutional decisions and major constitutional questions would henceforth be settled only through consensus and so, 50 years after the Constitution, the country should be given an opportunity to put the lessons of economics and politics into practice by amending the Constitution in whatever way the political class thought of it.

But even then I had argued that the basic structure doctrine, in spite of its conceptual inelegance, had served a purpose in the context of the Emergency, Mrs [Indira] Gandhis election case. It reminded a still-fledgling democracy of the perils of brute majoritarianism and those days were over. But 23 years after that critique of mine, we seem to be back to the era of overwhelming majorities. And so it seems that that doctrine acts as a protection. And Im sure you will agree with me that 23 years is a long enough period in a persons life for him to say that hes lived a bit, hes learnt a bit.

Why do you say it is conceptually inelegant?

It is counter-majoritarian in nature and that power is exercised, after all, by unelected judges. That is something which the judges also need to caution themselves about and I must say, to their credit, considering the few instances where they have interfered, that this is at the back of their minds when they apply the doctrine. I use the word majoritarian in a different sense from how you would normally understand majoritarian. I mean the will of the people as broadly expressed through the people whom they vote into power. So considering that, the court has been very restrained and if the court takes the view that the independence of the judiciary and its powers of judicial review are non-negotiable, no one can seriously have a problem with it.

Even the governments criticism is that unelected judges exercise this power

Theres no doubt that its a judicial invention. And it does depend on the subjective perception by judges of what the basic structure could be. Even in the Kesavananda Bharati case, you notice that different judges, in their enumeration of basic features, had differences. But I must say 50 years down the line, the imperfections of the doctrine have not led to judges running amok.

After all, ultimately, the number of cases after Kesavananda Bharati where constitutional amendments have been struck down is only six. While in those 50 years, there have been about 76 amendments to the Constitution.

So it is not, firstly, that every amendment gets challenged. And even if it is challenged, it is not that the court freely applies this doctrine. And therefore, the apprehension that the political class is prevented from carrying out important changes which they think may have a popular backing, those apprehensions are not justified. Even those few instances where the court has intervened, lets remember, have been in the context of judicial review and independence of judiciary.

The basic of basics would be sovereignty, which would also then mean for instance, if theres an organisation like the European Unionif India were to be part of a regional economic union of that level, then there could be a challenge on the ground of sovereignty. Then, a republican form of government, as against a monarchy, would be basic. Secularism would be basic. Democracy would be basic.

But then a moot question would be, between a presidential form of government and a Westminster system, is there a major difference? I think there is, because our Constituent Assembly made a conscious choice in the context of the accountability of the executive. The parliamentary form afforded a greater degree of accountability on a day-to-day basis. So within the democratic system itself, parliamentary vs presidential can pose a problem and even, within the parliamentary system, suppose we move from the first-past-the-post system to a system of proportional representation, would that fail the basic structure test? Thats a moot question but I would think that these are some of the very broad basics.

What facets of the Constitution do you see being tested against the doctrine?

Now if you look at the challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act, that would involve issues of equality and of secularism. If you look at the challenge to the watering down of Article 370, it would raise issues of federalism.

Read this article:

50 years of basic structure doctrine | Only safeguard against majoritarian govt: Sr Advocate Ramachandran - The Indian Express

Federalism is a type of government in which a central, or federal, government, and one or more regional governments work together to form one political system. Federalism is best recognized as a type of government wherein the powers are divided between the levels of government, and the people are subject to the laws at each level. Examples of federalism can be seen in the countries of the United States, Canada, and India, to name a few. To explore this concept, consider the following federalism definition.

Noun

Origin

1780-1790 Americanism

Federalism is a form of government in which a central government and smaller regional governments control the same geographical territory. Authority in such a government must be delineated, to minimize conflict between laws of each level. The terms federalism and confederalism both originate from the Latin foedus, which means treaty, pact, or covenant. These terms were synonymous until the nineteenth century, when federalism became more representative of the unification of the two types of government, and confederalism began being used to refer to the grouping of governments at the state level.

Federalism, as it is known now, concerns the sharing of governing power between national and state governments, which is why state governments have their own laws, which are separate from those of the central authority. When the Constitution was being drafted, the Federalists advocated for a more powerful central government, while the Anti-Federalists wanted the central government to have limited authority.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the governing document prior to the U.S. Constitution, the United States did, in fact, have a weaker central government, considered by many to be ineffectual. As the Constitution was drafted, the framers proceeded with the intent to increase the federal governments powers, without creating an overbearing authority.

The term Federalist refers to an individual who favors a strong central government, with governmental power being divided between that government and various regional governing levels. European federalism is reflected throughout history, as the continent has been comprised of significantly more separate nations or territories than North America. European federalism leans toward a weaker central government.

This differs from how a Federalist might be characterized in the United States, where federalism refers to a more powerful central government, and regional governments that retain their own lawmaking authority.

While American federalism in the modern sense is a lot closer to European federalism, some U.S. citizens feel that the federal governments power has exceeded what was perhaps intended by the countrys Founding Fathers. Most citizens who might consider themselves federalists by the modern American federalism definition, actually argue for the federal governments powers to be limited, particularly the powers of the judiciary.

European federalism examples can be found in countries like Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, and Switzerland. Germany and the EU are the only areas in the world where members of the federal upper houses of government are not elected, nor appointed, but are actually comprised of members of their constituents regional governments. A similar system could be seen in the early days of American federalism.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, created in 1913, changed how Senators from the various states would be elected from that point forward. Prior to that point, U.S. Senators had been elected by the states legislatures, rather than by the citizens themselves.

A classic example of federalism at the Supreme Court level occurred in 1803, when outgoing President John Adams signed a commission for William Marbury to become a justice of the peace, but the newly minted Secretary of State James Madison declined to deliver it. Marbury sued Madison to force him to deliver his commission. This all-reaching authority, of a Secretary of State to ignore a presidents appointment of a judge, became the focus of the Supreme Courts review of the matter.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in this matter of Marbury v. Madison, set a precedent by establishing the idea of judicial review a crucial element to the checks and balances system put in place to prevent any particular branch of the federal government from becoming too powerful. In accordance with Chief Justice Marshalls decision, the Supreme Court,for the first time ever, declared a law which had been passed by Congress, and signed by the President to be unconstitutional. The Constitution did not specifically provide the Court with this power; however, Marshall believed that the Court should have an equal role in comparison to those of the other two branches of the federal government.

As is to be expected, federalism in other countries is defined a little differently. Here are a few examples of federalism as it exists in other countries:

Australias federation officially began on January 1, 1901 the very first day of a brand new century, give or take a year. When the United Kingdom colonized Australia in 1788, six colonies were established that would eventually go on to be self-governing. During the 1890s, referendums were held by each of these colonies governments to determine whether or not they would become a unified, self-governing Commonwealth.

The colonies all voted in favor of federation, thereby establishing the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. Australias federalism closely resembles that of Americas original model, though it substitutes a presidential system with a parliamentary system.

A presidential system was established in Brazil in 1889, after the fall of the countrys monarchy. Federalism was established by Deodoro da Fonseca by decree, but every Brazilian constitution since the first in 1891 would go on to confirm this form of government, even if some of the newer documents would make some changes to the specific principles.

Power became centralized in Brazilian government in 1937 under President Getulio Vargas, with the establishment of an authority that would permit the appointment of state governors (interventors) at will. Brazil has gone on to become one of the largest federal governments in the world.

In Canada, powers are divided between the countrys federal parliament and its provincial governments. Canadas Constitution Act of 1867, formerly the British North America Act, defines which powers are assigned to whom. Matters not covered by the constitution are normally handled by the federal government; however, there have been, and continue to be, long-standing conflicts over which level of government is entitled to jurisdiction on a variety of matters, including taxation and natural resources.

The Government of India (also known as the Union Government) rules over a federal union consisting of 29 states and seven union territories, and provides perhaps the most comprehensive example of federalism. Indias government is more complex than the governments of other countries, specifically because it operates on three separate tiers, each of which is assigned executive powers in accordance with the Constitution of India. In this way, Indias government resembles the United States, which also delegates powers to three separate branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch.

Indias government originally operated on the principle of a two-tiered system, as dictated by its Constitution, which consisted of the Union Government (the Central Government) and the State governments. The third tier, Panchayats and Municipalities, was added later on.

Presently, the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution assigns governmental jurisdiction to the three tiers by way of three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The Union List handles matters of national importance, such as national security, foreign affairs, and currency. Only the Union Government can make laws pertaining to these areas. The State List does what its name suggests, delegating power to the State governments to preside over matters involving State and local importance, such as police, agriculture, and trade.

Finally, the Concurrent List blends the two aforementioned powers together and governs matters of interest to both the State and Union governments, like marriage, adoption, education, and trade unions. Both governments have the authority to make laws pertaining to these subjects. However, should conflicting laws be drafted, decisions then default to the Union government.

Fiscal federalism refers to the division of the various government functions, and how financial matters are to be distributed among the levels of government. More specifically, fiscal federalism deals with the transfer of payments, or issuance of grants, to lower level governments, so that the central government can share its revenues with the lower levels.

The federal government relies on a system of fiscal federalism to provide incentive for the states to adopt federal rules and standards while, at the same time, increasing the states operational revenues. To this end, there are two primary types of transfer: conditional, and unconditional. A conditional transfer from a federal government to a state or local government comes with a particular set of conditions, as the name suggests.

For instance, should a lower level of government be offered one of these transfers, it must agree to whatever spending instructions are given to it by the federal government in order to receive the transfer. An unconditional transfer, on the other hand, typically comes with no spending instructions, and is usually a cash or tax point transfer.

In the mid-20th century, it became obvious that people involved in automobile accidents were more likely to sustain serious, or even fatal, injuries when they were not secured into the vehicle. The federal government did not have the authority to create a law requiring all people to wear seatbelts, so another road to safety was taken. The federal government offered the states a monetary incentive to enact their own seatbelt laws.

Over a period of years, millions of dollars were handed out to states that passed primary seat belt laws, requiring all passengers to be restrained in motor vehicles. The money, once transferred to the states, could be used for any purpose that related to highway safety issues. This was a boon to states that needed to repave highways, install more traffic signals and signage, to address other safety concerns.

Fiscal decentralization refers to the taking away of certain fiscal authority and responsibilities from the federal government, in favor of the regional or state governments. This gives the local governments the authority to raise taxes, and to determine their own expenditures. While fiscal federalism has been described as more of a guide containing fiscal principles that are to be followed, fiscal decentralization involves putting theory into practice and applying those principles to their applicable situations.

The rest is here:

Federalism - Definition, Examples, Cases, processes - Legal Dictionary

The term federalism is often confusing. You would think that federalism involves a system where the federal government has more influence and power, but its just the opposite. Federalism actually describes a system of government where some powers belong to the national government, and some powers belong to the state government.

Federal systems must have at least two levels of government. As you know, America has a federal government that consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches (headquartered in Washington, DC). Thats one level. The other level comes from the 50 state governments, each with their own powers and sovereignty.

The Founding Fathers adopted federalism in response to the problems with Americas first system of government, the Articles of Confederation. If you think back to your high school history class, you may remember the 13 original states created the Articles of Confederation as the United States first form of government. Under this system, the states remained sovereign and independent, and a newly created Congress served as a last resort to resolve disputes.

But the articles had some weaknesses. The biggest problem was Congress wasnt strong enough to enforce laws or raise taxes. These flaws prompted the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There, delegates from the 13 states drafted the Constitution to address the problems with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution created a stronger central government to oversee national issues while keeping most power in the states. This is a federalist style of governmentand Americas systemwhere power is shared between the state, local, and national governments.

In the United States, the federal government has the power to regulate trade between states, declare war, manage the mail, and print moneyamong several other powers.

State governments have their own set of powers too. States generally oversee education, roads, drivers licenses, police departments, elections, and more. Notably, all power not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people. The Founders intended the federal governments powers to be limited. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison noted: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

And then there are shared powers, also known as concurrent powers. Both the federal and state governments have the power to tax and establish courts, for example.

A healthy federalist system is one in which citizens are active, informed participants who hold government officials accountable and push back when they overstep their powers. The recent challenges to Governors Cuomo and Newsoms actions are an example of individuals and organizations demanding accountability. An example of state governments pushing back against overreach by the federal government can be seen with the recent federal vaccine mandates. When OSHA and other federal agencies issued mandates which attempted to usurp states acknowledged authority over public health, states pushed back, filing lawsuits that have been upheld by federal courts.

The American colonists fought the American Revolution because they wanted to break free from the tyrannical government led by Englands King George III. After winning the war in 1781, the new American citizens were very hesitant to create a powerful, centralized government. Thats why they created the Articles of Confederation. But the Articles were too weak and gave states too much power. Federalism was a compromise. Its the idea that government authority rests in both the national and state governments. Its why you are a citizen of both your state and the United States!

One benefit of federalism is it creates laboratories of democracy across the country. This means states are free to try different policies and see what works best for their populations. A good policy in Wyoming, for example, might not be the most effective policy for a bigger state such as California. Federalism allows states to adopt policies that best fit their needs.

Another benefit of federalism is it protects the American people from tyranny. Because power isnt concentrated at one levelor within one branch of governmentits difficult for one branch to take control of the others.

Yes. Besides the United States, 30 other countries use federalist systems for their governments. These countries include India, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, and Brazil.

There you have it. A very brief overview of what federalism is and how it works. If youre interested in learning more about this form of government, these resources may interest you:

FederalismBill of Rights Institute

What is Federalism?History on the Net

When the Founding Fathers Settled States vs. Federal RightsAnd Saved the NationHistory Channel

What is Federalism?US Law Essentials

Federalism is a Condition for Better StatesAmerican Enterprise Institute

Too many decisions have been taken out of the hands of citizens and our elected representatives and left up to Washington, DC. The solution lies in reclaiming self-governance in our states and communities.

A new book, I, Citizen, offers concrete solutions for how our country can come together to reclaim local and state control from the political elites in Washington.

See original here:

What is federalism? | State Policy Network

UPSC Key- January 19, 2023: Learn about Annual Status of Education Report, Federalism and State Legislatures  The Indian Express

Read this article:

UPSC Key- January 19, 2023: Learn about Annual Status of Education Report, Federalism and State Legislatures - The Indian Express