1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
likoan [24]
3 years ago
14

Does the concept of implied powers undercut federalism? Why or why not?

History
2 answers:
iragen [17]3 years ago
4 0

Answer

Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the states did have the power to levy taxes, but that the federal laws control the laws in the states, which cannot control the federal institutions. ... Implied cuts do undercut federalism. Implied powers are those not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Ksivusya [100]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

YES it undercuts Federalism

Explanation:

Implied powers are powers that congress can exercise in order to fulfill an obligation or power that is granted to the congress explicitly by the constitution.

The implied power itself is not explicitly stated in the constitution but it right to execute does powers because they are born out of necessity. Implied powers undercuts Federalism because in federalism the regions/states share the Governing power as stated in the constitution. since the implied powers are not explicitly stated the state/regions can't share those powers with the Federal Government.

You might be interested in
At first, why didn’t the Senate allow the law of emancipation (of slaves) a thing?
ss7ja [257]

Answer:

THey did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and so those states were not named in the Proclamation

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Why is "promote the general welfare" the principle that applies to the debate about universal health care?
murzikaleks [220]
The government of the United States is supposed to be a government of limited powers; when the federal government was formed by agreement of the 13 original states, the states gave up their right to govern themselves only to the extent they expressly gave power to the national government under the Constitution. 
<span>The U.S. Constitution does not anywhere expressly grant the federal government the power to provide universal health care (which requires taxing some people more than others and other people receiving more benefits as individuals than others) Those who oppose universal health care say that a law providing universal health care would be unconstitutional. Those who favor this type of law argue that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and that universal health care is part of the general welfare. This same argument was used in support of the Social Security Act in the 1930s and the Supreme Court then agreed that the general welfare was served by old age pensions. </span>

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress. It begins: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". If not for this clause, the federal government would not have the right under the Constitution to provide universal, or even subsidized, health care.

(It should be noted that that is not the Constitution's only reference to the "general welfare"; the crucial importance of this concept is indicated by the fact that the brief Preamble of the Constitution includes providing for the general welfare as one of the reasons that the new nation, the United States of America, was formed.)

<span>What exactly does "general welfare" mean? Is it a separate power of Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, or is Congress' power to tax and spend limited to those areas which are specifically listed as those in which it make laws and regulate? This is one of those vague phrases in the Constitution that the founders left for future generations to interpret, knowing they could not resolve every possible issue within the few months in which they hoped to create a new form of government. The meaning of "general welfare" because the subject of debate very quickly and is still under debate 225 years later. </span>

<span>Federalists who believed in a strong central government, such as Alexander Hamilton, argued that the general welfare clause granted Congress a broad power to levy taxes and spend money for the general welfare of the country as well as for purposes specifically listed as powers of Congress. James Madison, one of the principal writers of the Constitution, disagreed, arguing that this made the power of the federal government too broad and that the list of enumerated powers was supposed to limit the purposes for which Congress could tax and spend as well as the purposes for which it could make laws. </span>
<span>There was limited reason for the Supreme Court to attempt to interpret the general welfare clause until the 1930s, when President Roosevelt and Congress passed a wide variety of new laws in their attempts to bring the country out of the Great Depression. They based their power to do so on the general welfare clause (until then, most broad federal actions were justified by the Constitution's grant to the federal government of power to regulate commerce). The Supreme Court in </span>United States v. Butler<span> (1936) upheld the right of Congress under the general welfare clause to raise money and distribute it in ways not included in the specific list of powers in Article I, Section 8. However, the Court stated that this power was limited to matters affecting the general welfare of the United States as a whole, rather than the welfare of particular areas or people. </span>
<span>One year later, in </span>Helvering v. Davis<span> (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the old-age insurance provided by the Social Security Act of 1935, stating that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the general welfare clause was limited to general or national good, Congress had the power also to decide what constituted the general welfare. That has been the general interpretation of the law since then. </span>
<span>Conservatives think the Supreme Court abdicated too much power to Congress, arguing that "general welfare" means the general welfare of the nation as a whole, and that this clause does not justify taxation and spending as a means of redistributing wealth from those who have more to those who have less. That seems to be viewing the country solely as an indivisible political entity, the United States of America. Progressives argue that the country is more than that, it is a collection of over 300 million people, and believe that the general welfare of the people is essential to maintain the general welfare of the nation.</span>
3 0
3 years ago
Does George Washington's account contradict or support the account in the newspaper? Give two examples to support your response
vladimir1956 [14]
<span>Among George Washington's critics are those who wonder how the nation might have developed had he sided with Jefferson in the partisan debates that swirled all around him as President. By identifying himself with Hamilton, he actually furthered the partisanship he so vigorously denounced in his farewell speech to the nation. In the eyes of those historians who doubt his greatness, this is Washington's most significant failure as President.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
3 positive effects of the agricultural revolution
Ivahew [28]

Answer:

Rural-to-urban migration, the development of a coherent and loosely regulated agricultural market, and the emergence of capitalist farmers were all triggered by the Agricultural Revolution's increased agricultural production and technological advancements, which contributed to unprecedented population growth and new agricultural practices.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
In which situation involving union activity would be government most likely get involved
Grace [21]

The correct answer is C) a violent or destructive protest.

The situation would a violent or destructive protest.

The United States Constitution allows its citizens the right to freedom of speech. American citizens can form groups and protest in peaceful ways to express their ideas. It is included in the Bill of Rights. If for any reason, those protests became dangerous acts of violence that put at risk other people or locations, then the government must act swiftly, with determination.

The other options of the question were A) a successful strike, B) a union formed against a company's will, and D) a request by management.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Label the seven continents and four oceans in the boxes provided on the map or write each name next to a number in the list
    9·1 answer
  • The Firebombing of Tokyo
    7·1 answer
  • What is a paragraph about the domestication of cats?
    5·1 answer
  • These are the Spheres of Influence in China.
    6·2 answers
  • During which time was the foundations for Hinduism established?
    5·2 answers
  • I need some help can u help
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following features of the Cathedral of Saint James help identify it as a pilgrimage church?
    10·2 answers
  • How did President Carter respond to the energy crisis in 1979?
    7·2 answers
  • PLZ HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL MARK YOU BRAINLIEST ( WORTH 10 POINTS ) PLZ HELP!!!!!!!!!
    6·1 answer
  • Who went and explored the Louisiana Purchase? o Congress O Lewis and Clark O Napoleon O Jefferson​
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!