When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers in 1788, they appealed

to a skeptical public loyal to their states and wary of any overarching federal government that remotely resembled the British monarchy from which they had gained independence. On the other hand, Shays Rebellion had demonstrated that the Articles of Confederation gave too little power to the federal government, but many believed that the proposed Constitution would give it too much. The Federalist Papers sought to dispel these fears, arguing that the Constitution created a federal government that had only specific enumerated powers and that a system of checks and balances would prevent the concentration of federal power. The Federalists ultimately won over the public, but fundamental issues of states rights are debated to this day. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the federal system and argue in favor of the devolution of some power to the states. As with any form of government, the efficiency of federalism is disputed. Some believe certain facets to be pros whereas others see the same structures to be cons. The federal system boasts endless pros and cons, so, for the sake of brevity, one aspect of the United States government will be discussed. An example of federalisms ambivalent nature is evident in Congress, where a system of checks and balances ensures controlled power but slows down legislative processes. Congress is composed of a bicameral legislature the House of Representatives and the Senate. State population determines House representation, whereas states are represented equally in the Senate. The Founding Fathers created the Senate so that smaller states had a voice in Congress that would be unobstructed by larger, more populous states. For example, if several largely populous states like New York and California succeeded in cutting government funding for farmers in the House, agricultural states such as Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, and Kansas would

have a chance to rebuke the Houses decision in the Senate. In this case, the system of checks and balances ensures that every state has an equal say in legislature. The same system, however, can be viewed as a misrepresentation of majority opinion. If several states that comprised the majority of the United States population passed a bill in the House, a large group of smaller states could kill the bill in the Senate. In this situation, the minority becomes the factional majority, and the general population loses out. Likewise, the federal system of checks and balances acts as a con in that it can facilitate lengthy legislative delays and even congressional gridlock. When Congress is divided opposing parties run the House and Senate the legislative process is slowed because of conflicting party interests. For example, a bill supporting increased taxes on the wealthy could pass in a liberal House but would likely die in a conservative Senate. Because the United States government is frequently divided, the system of checks and balances is often a detriment to the progress and growth of the country. Though legislative processes may be painstakingly slow, the Founding Fathers created Congress the way it is to prevent factional tyranny. What might seem like a con to those pushing for abrupt legislative change may come across as a pro to others. The molasses-like speed of Congress ensures that bills are passed only when they are absolutely necessary and deemed appropriate by most citizens regardless of party identification. If legislation passes through Congress quickly, it is likely because of a unified government with legislators who have been elected by popular vote. In either case, the people of the United States are generally represented accurately. The pros and cons of a bicameral legislature have, and always will be a topic of dispute for American citizens. That aside a timely and more pressing issue is that of devolution, in

which power shifts from the federal to state governments. Moral and economic issues are frontrunners in the power struggle between state and national governments, and are the topic of impassioned debate between policymakers and citizens alike. Though it is vital for economic power to stay within the realm of the federal government, moral issues should be delegated to the states. Often the most controversial and heated issues to occupy the media, day-to-day conversation, and the polls are those concerning moral values. Because views on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and capital punishment are often strongly polarized, it would be irrational for the national government to make an all-encompassing law leaning one way or the other. Public outrage would be rampant and government approval ratings would inevitably plummet. Therefore, laws regarding moral issues must be created by individual states that are more likely to satisfy the needs of the immediate public. In the article A Separate Peace, author Jonathan Rauch discusses the term moral pluralism, in which states create customized legislature regarding moral issues when national unanimity is lacking. He cites examples such as gay marriage, where states adopt variations of laws regarding marriage according to public opinion. In such cases, devolution is beneficial the federal government can keep its hands clean of messy issues while the states legislate based on majority opinion. Most often Congress steers clear of inflammatory moral issues, but in some cases party polarization gets in the way and moral issues become a matter of political conquest. For example, in 1973 the Supreme Court upheld that abortion was legal in the case Roe v. Wade. As a result, widespread conservative outrage grew and pro-life supporters mobilized. Since then, abortion has been a hot topic issue that Rauch describes as a segment of protest politics, which rejects compromise and fosters radicalism (Rauch). In cases like these, the refusal of the

national government to delegate powers to the states is counterproductive: the abortion issue has reached a plateau and neither party is willing to compromise. However, when the states have legislative authority over moral issues, the result is a diversity of practice that mirrors the diversity of opinion (Rauch). Unlike moral issues, economic legislature should not be based upon opinion but on fact. Economic theories are few and far between, and are often far too complicated to be entrusted to the general American public. Even most government representatives are not qualified to make judgments regarding economic policies, though they may be well educated and advised. Policies regarding the economy should be constructed and voted on by a small group of the most qualified economists, and put into place without a public or congressional vote. Because it affects the whole country, economic policy should be created by those free of bribery, worries about reelection, or party loyalty. Devolution of economic power towards the states is, quite frankly, illogical and senseless. Arguably the best system of government in the history of the world, Federalism still manages to create mass outrage and frustration. The cons are obvious and many, but so are the pros. Extremely bright and well-informed people disagree with each other on many issues, including the devolution of power to the states. There is no right way to run a federal system of government, however, it is the conflicting opinions of American citizens about government that are the breath and life of Democracy.