Conflict between the State Sovereign Rights and Federal Rights (Research Paper Sample)

Conflict between the State Sovereign Rights and Federal Rights
Student’s Name
Institution
Introduction
The American legal system constitutes two fundamental levels that define the laws of the American constitution. These two basic legislative levels are the state law and the federal law. Awareness of these governmental levels is significant for understanding the American rule of law that applies to apply to the states, and its overall nation. State laws define the legal rights that the citizens of a specified state need to follow. The American legislator considers the state rights as a legislative power of a state to fulfil its constitutional authority. The legal principles under the state laws suggest that the sovereignty dwells with each American state. This legal principle allows the state to become the ultimate arbitrator that supersedes the laws that are controlling the states collectively (Durchslag, 2002). However, state rights have received countless criticism from legislators in national government due to its consistence efforts in trying to limit the power of the national administration.
In contrast, the federal system of law, the political control is divided between the local governments and the central government. The concept of federalism stresses that a good number of political structures are united to form a larger political structure. The federal laws are what constitute the national government, and are promulgated in the American constitution (Durchslag, 2002). Additionally, the state and federal rights possess their own legal jurisdiction, and are viewed as a meaningful instrument for governmental operation. Federal rights are applied to the whole America, meaning that it is enforced to the fifty states in the country. The conflict that arises between these two legal systems is that the federal law always supersedes the state laws even if a given law is widely accepted by the people of that state. Most predominantly, the superiority clause incorporates the doctrine of pre-emption that reckons the federal government as victor in case of conflicting legislation that arises from state government. (Shortell, 2008). This has generated to the ongoing conflicts between the state rights and federal rights since the enactment of the American constitution. This essay will discuss the conflict between the state sovereign rights and the federal rights. Besides, it will explain in details with support of contemporary examples where this legislation conflicts is ongoing.
The controversy of balance of power between the state sovereign rights and federal rights was the crucial foundation of the conflict. The state government has always felt that the federal government is becoming more dominant in operating the structures of the government. It has always perceived that doctrine termed as the federal pre-emption is favouring the interest s of the national government while overlooking those of the state government. Even though this legislative matter has been solved over time via the legal procedures in the American constitution, they have not met the satisfaction of the state government. Nevertheless, the constitution of America emphasizes that the states need to be given equal legislative power with the federal government. This will contribute to each state to govern its governmental affairs. In particular, the constitution permits the states to execute laws that safeguard the people’s liberty (Shortell, 2008). It implies that the state government has the legal powers to formulate laws whose decisive goal is to secure citizen’s liberty without the interference of the national government. Additionally, the American litigation considers that the state has the legal mandate of taking the national government to court, such as a high court to fight for those laws. Sadly, federal rights supersede state laws precisely when the person in dispute tries to benefit from the state laws. Because of this, the legislators from the State government have felt that there is absence of balance of power from the national government.
Addressing the problems of slavery and tax duties is another fundamental cause of the conflict. War of 1812 that happened in the classical England had devastating effect to the economy of England (In Leiter,Richard & A, 2007). The war was viewed as the focal point of interrupting its trading activities with Britain. Government tariffs that aided the Northern manufacturers while damaging the economic growth of southern states, contributed to the nullification catastrophe. The situation caused the state legislators of the Southern Carolina to assert the catastrophe as null and empty. State legislators are warned to abandon the Union after the poor mismanagement of tariffs by the national government. However, the agreement was reached between the National Government and the southern state of Carolina but this was the beginning point of the conflict. Besides, dynamic attitude in relation to slavery was another contributing factor of conflict between the State sovereign rights and federal rights. In short, slavery was initially practiced in all states but the policymakers of the constitution evaded this contentious issue. The developers of the constitution omitted to address the issue of whether to maintain slavery or abolish it to obtain views from all states. The controversy of slavery continued in these years that formulated an increasing gap between the states that were practicing slavery, and those that were not (Lawson, 2009). Nevertheless, the influence of slavery in these states was minimized to the extent of being abolished with the coming of Lincoln as the president. This facilitated to the ongoing contemporary rivalry between the state sovereign rights, and the federal government.
Modern day examples of the Federal to State conflict
Approval of Education Reconciliation act, and the health care granted the national government an increased amount of legislative power. The influence of these acts inflicted demanding legal rules and regulations on American citizens, states, and companies. The approval of this Act had negative implication to the American society. It caused controversy in the significant number of state, including 26 states (Katagiri, 2001). Among these states is the state of Arizona that was highly against the amendment and approval of the Education Reconciliation Act. It facilitated 26 states to file lawsuit probing to repeal the law. The legislators were emphasizing that there were numerous laws that had become nearly challenging to implement. The issue of the lawsuit became intense, and it has since been endorsed for assessment by the American Supreme court. The approval of the law by Obama received massive critics precisely from the legislators of the state government. However, the bill received massive support from other states, such as Massachusetts that were in favour of the Education Reconciliation Act and the healthcare Act. Education reconciliation Act will enhance education by making learning affordable and easily accessible while the healthcare Act will contribute to a healthy living society (Katagiri, 2001).
The legitimate functions of the government in illegal immigration are another decisive current example of the conflict. The convenient responsibilities of the government in the context of the issue of illegal immigration are necessary to clearly defined to solve the dispute that exists between the state, and federal rights. There are Border States that have been claimed to have an increased number of illegal immigration cases. In particular, the border state of Arizona, Texas, and others has had the increasing cases of illegal immigration (Durchslag, 2002). The...