Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.
Page 1 of 2 Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s. In the 1960s, the government had a creative federalist approach. The aim of Lynden Johnson's Great society programmes was to try to eliminate poverty within the US. This in turn meant large government grants were given to states, which was seen to increase the level of interference from the federal government. Johnson also provided categorical grants instead of block grants, which meant the states had much less control over their spending. He also supplied a lot of federal aid, increasing the dependence of states on the federal government. It wasn't just the executive increasing the role; the judiciary were also pushing the government this way, with cases such as Gideon vs. Wainwright and Miranda vs. Arizona. Since the 1960's the some have stated that New Federalism has been the main objective of the executive and judiciary due to the previous creative federalism. From the 1970s there was an ideological shift, with the rejection of liberal values from the 1960s. President Nixon started the development of the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power of their local rights. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great
