{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"13145479","dateCreated":"1247140480","smartDate":"Jul 9, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"stevelewonski","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/stevelewonski","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gpezzabucks.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/13145479"},"dateDigested":1532092895,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Federalism","description":"Forgot to include this in the earlier post: The founding fathers also rejected the confederation system after their recent experiences of the failures of that form of government via the Articles of Confederation.
\n
\nThe friction that arose between the various states over trade and sovereignty issues doomed that system to failure. Inconsistencies in law, contracts, treatment of persons traveling between states or moving from one to another, all proved to be points of contention under the confederated system of government.
\n
\nThese circumstances aided the founders in their choice of a federal system for the newly created government.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"13113585","dateCreated":"1246921289","smartDate":"Jul 6, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"gpezza","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/gpezza","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gpezzabucks.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/13113585"},"dateDigested":1532092895,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Federalism","description":"In Today's Class We Introduced The Concept Of Federalism. Please Respond To The Following Prompt:
\nWhat Practical Reason Would The Founders Of The Nation Have To Want To Limit The Power Of A Strong Central Government?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"13122307","body":"The founders of the nation would have wanted to limit the power of a strong central government because if it had too much power it could force states and cities to do things that could be detrimental to the local region. For example, if the central government wanted to outlaw a certain commodity that most of the country felt should be outlawed but one state's economy depended on this commodity, the state, having equal power, would be able to reject this ban while the other states went along with the ban. Further, without rapid means of communication such as the telephone or email, the central government couldn't possibly be efficient. By granting the states powers not granted to the central government, the states could act more effectively in dealing with local affairs.","dateCreated":"1246984167","smartDate":"Jul 7, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ttolt91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ttolt91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"13123101","body":"A practical reason that the founding fathers limited the power of the central government was to prevent what they were fighting against at the time of the creation of America, a tyrannical country. If they designed the central American government the same way, then who is to say that after they are gone, that an American tyrant would not come along to do the same as Britain did on baby America? The checks and balances of state and federal governments prevents any one component, which could be a future tyrant, from having uncontrollable power. Another means is to avoid absolutism. This was the age of enlightenment and British empiricism, the age of logic and reason, so they would want to argue over a problem logically, instead of absolutist decisions by one all powerful government, like the royalty of Britain. An example of this attitude is evident in George Washington himself. He was actually offered to be in the position of king, but he declined because that was what they wanted to get away from, so he settled with a president position instead. The founding fathers built back doors for everything, so that no lust for power could be assumed from the strength of an absolute centralized ruling god-hand government.","dateCreated":"1246987925","smartDate":"Jul 7, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"richweicheld","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/richweicheld","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1246988464\/richweicheld-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"13123201","body":"The founders of the United States of America probably chose to limit the powers of a strong central government after seeing how a monarchy structured government system worked in England. Allowing the federal or central government unlimited access and power gives the people of the country a lot less say as compared to bisecting the power to both the central and state governments. By giving the state and federal government equal power, the founding fathers realized that representatives closer to home would have better understanding to mundane citizens' requests, whereas those elected to a federal government position couldn't possibly handle all issues of the nation.
\nPerhaps a practical fear, giving any group too much power often results in costly and deadly matters, and I think our founding fathers were trying to avoid that issue when they opted to restrict powers of a strong central government.","dateCreated":"1246988426","smartDate":"Jul 7, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"andicooke","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/andicooke","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"13140005","body":"The practical reason of our nation's founders to limit the power of a strong central government was to create an elected government directly responsive to the will of the people.
\n
\nLong before the Constitution was adopted, the original 13 states already had written consistitutions and were operating independently. The American settlers prized their personal freedom and were afraid that a strong centralized government would jeopardize that. Also by that time, diversity of culture and religion were causing many different opinions and issues.
\n
\nThe founding fathers called for a bonding of the states for national reasons, while recognizing the need for a series of (state) governments to allow more direct contact with the people and their needs.","dateCreated":"1247094244","smartDate":"Jul 8, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"griffd","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/griffd","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"13143637","body":"Federalism
\n
\nWhat practical reasons would the founding fathers of the nation have to want to limit the power of a strong central government?
\n
\n
\n\u201cI am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those who show an even greater readiness to submit.\u201d ---Thucydides
\n
\n The founding fathers were well read in the historical accounts of Greece and Rome.
\nBeing familiar with Herodotus, Socrates, Plato, Tullius Cicero, Julius Caesar, Marc
\nAntony, and Marcus Aurelius; they would have had a foundation in the timelessness of
\nbase human nature. The adage: \u2018Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely\u2019
\nwas well understood by these men (and Abigail Adams). The several bloody revolutions
\nthat had wracked England were typically the result of petty leadership or religious
\nintolerance or both (Example: Oliver Cromwell). These men saw the limitations of
\nconcentrating power too closely invested in a single dynastic line or pre-determined
\nsegment of society. A broad base of power ensured that no single person or an aggregate
\nof persons could wield enough power to dominate the whole of government.
\n
\n The several checks and balances and fail-safes that are written into the Constitution
\nwere intentionally included to act as a barrier to monarchical, tyrannical, or oligarchic
\nambition. The foresight of the founding fathers to recognize the imperfect nature of
\nhuman ambition and the propensity for greed, corruption and political hubris in
\ngovernment systems is brilliant.
\n
\n After the recent common experiences the founders had all witnessed in their own
\nlifetimes, they had good reason to fear such a powerful central authority. The long
\nsuffered grievances included the casual discarding of hard-fought gains by colonials in
\nthe French & Indian War by the crown, the billeting of Redcoats in private homes, the
\nimposition of taxes without representation, the imbalance in trade between the colonies
\nand England, and the culminating event of trying to seize private arms and ammunition
\nstockpiles. Lexington Green and Concord Bridge were inevitable events driven by the autocratic rule of the elitist class that occupied Parliament and the simpering King George III. The twenty years of simmering resentment that had been building up as an opposition to royal and Parliamentary decrees ensured that any system that would replace the dictates of that centralized authority would be based on a broad dissemination of power.
\n
\n Technically our system uses the broadest dissemination of power, since the People are sovereign, and can ultimately alter the mechanisms of government. Reality has been rather different in the application of this ideal. While there is no utopian system of governance within any human group, the American system ensures the most egalitarian access to power by those who would otherwise be oppressed.","dateCreated":"1247119012","smartDate":"Jul 8, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"stevelewonski","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/stevelewonski","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"13145181","body":"The founding fathers believed that all men have natural rights. They also believed that a strong central government was a potential threat to these rights. A government by the people are for the people, and the constitutions are to guide us.
\n
\nThe founding fathers created three branches of government each of which has separated and parallel power.
\n
\n" An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." James Madison","dateCreated":"1247136861","smartDate":"Jul 9, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"zitong66","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/zitong66","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1247335343\/zitong66-lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}