How federalism has evolved in the U.S. from the late 18th century to the present day

 

Describe how federalism has evolved in the U.S. from the late 18th century to the present day, including Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, and the changing balance of power between the Federal government and the states in each of the four periods. (President Bush
The Patriot Act, war on terrorism, No Child Left Behind
President Obama
Bailouts for the private sector and homeowners, federal grants to help states and local governments, the Affordable Care Act (the Obama Care)
President Trump
Immigration reforms, building a wall, , DECA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) PROGRAM, Covid-19 government response
Use ONE EXAMPLE from each presidency to describe how the balance of power has shifted between the Federal government and the states
)explain layer cake vs. marble cake, the impact of the Great Depression, preemption, unfunded mandates, general revenue sharing, and categorical and block grants, and how does the Federal government use the grant-in-aid system to enforce national standards.(Please include ALL these questions in the essay. )

 

 

Sample Solution

How federalism has evolved in the U.S. from the late 18th century to the present day

Federalism has evolved over the course of American history. At different points in time, the balance and boundaries between the national and state government have changed substantially. In the twentieth century, the role of the national government expanded dramatically, and it continues to expand in the twenty-first century. Federalism has changed over time from clear divisions of powers between national, state, and local governments in the early years of the republic to greater intermingling and cooperation as well as conflict and competition today. During the first decades of the republic, many politicians held that states` rights allowed states to disobey any national government that in their view exceeded its power. Then dual federalism became the dominant doctrine. During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism emerged and held sway until the 1960s. Since then, the situation is summarized by the term competitive federalism.

nds causally on the existence of other beings (e.g., our parents), God’s existence does not depend causally on the existence of any other being. Further, on Malcolm’s view, the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. Here is his argument for this important claim. Either an unlimited being exists at world W or it doesn’t exist at world W; there are no other possibilities. If an unlimited being does not exist in W, then its nonexistence cannot be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature of W; accordingly, there is no contingent feature of W that explains why that being doesn’t exist. Now suppose, per reductio, an unlimited being exists in some other world W’. If so, then it must be some contingent feature f of W’ that explains why that being exists in that world. But this entails that the nonexistence of an unlimited being in W can be explained by the absence of f in W; and this contradicts the claim that its nonexistence in W can’t be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature. Thus, if God doesn’t exist at W, then God doesn’t exist in any logically possible world. A very similar argument can be given for the claim that an unlimited being exists in every logically possible world if it exists in some possible world W; the details are left for the interested reader. Since there are only two possibilities with respect to W and one entails the impossibility of an unlimited being and the other entails the necessity of an unlimited being, it follows that the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. All that is left, then, to complete Malcolm’s elegant version of the proof is the premise that the existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible – and this seems plausible enough. The existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible only if the concept of an unlimited being is self-contradictory. Since we have no reason, on Malcolm’s view to think the existence of an unlimited being is self-contradictory, it follows that an unlimited being, i.e., God, exists. Here’s the argument reduced to its basic elements: God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary. Notice that Malcolm’s version of the argument does not turn on the claim that necessary existence is a great-making property. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impo

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.