When United Sates is set up based on

    When considering the concept of federalism,
many ideas and terms come into play. Various countries have varied
interpretations of what it means to have a division of power. Through the
evolution of our great country, the very definition of federalism has
transformed into the very practice that we know today.

  According to the Framers of
the Constitution, because men are not of any reason to govern themselves, an
authoritative power or powers must be instated to assume order (Evans & Michaud, 2017). Due
in part to the early struggles with a weak, central government, the
Constitution was written, and became known as the supreme law of the land, once
the Articles of Confederation were deemed ineffective. Because of this, the
United Sates is set up based on a system composed of the separation of
government by the national, state, and local dignitaries. Through this, the
U.S. Constitution set up and still “provides a system of checks and
balances between the three branches of government” (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2014). With time, this meaning changed. At the conception of the
Constitution, the federal government was granted enumerated powers, and
everything that remained after such was given to the states (Barnett, Gerken,
2016). This concept is initially mentioned in Article I of the document, but
later reinforced in the Tenth Amendment. All in all, power is subjected by the
national government, but not limited to the power of the people, or the states.
From this, the powers of the states were and are solely affirmed through the
limiting power of the federal government (U.S. Const. art. I).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

     Federalism divides the
government into two sovereign powers: national and state government.  In terms of the concept of Federalism, the
responsibilities of overtaken by both have changed since the early days of the
republic. States were given the authority over all domestic policies, while the
national government assumed limited responsibility; these were mainly covered
in overarching areas (Evans & Michaud, 2017). Early state
responsibilities included issues concerning topics that benefitted the overall
well-being of citizens, whereas the country covered areas of national defense
and commerce regulation. Although some areas of this control are still intact, the
national and state “shares the responsibility of a wide array of economic and
domestic issues” (Evans & Michaud, 2017). This is commonly associated
with the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Each
branch acts as a sort of creator, enforcer, and entity if carrying out policy
that is to be instated throughout the country. With this division, the
enforcement of shared power comes into play.

     In ordinance with domestic
policy, free community college tuition is an ongoing debate. Many states are
already participating in creating a shift in the way that American education is
given. This includes: Oregon, New York, and Tennessee. The idea was first
introduced by President Obama in 2015. The plan consists of giving the tuition
in scholarship form after need-based financial assistance is awarded (Lobosco,
2017). Ben Cannon, the executive director of the Oregon Higher Education
Coordinating Commission, claims that Oregon, as a state, “acknowledges and understands
that high school
education is not enough” in terms of what a student needs to be successful later in
life (Brownstein, 2017). The plan, set forth by the state, basically associates
that this public education continues for the next four years into college. From
this, a post-secondary education is awarded to those who would not be normally
able to afford it. Coincidentally in Tennessee, David Wright, the Tennessee
Higher Education Commission’s chief policy officer claims this factor to be “an economic-competitiveness
issue”
(Brownstein, 2017). This is due in part to a program, called “last dollar”, recently implemented as a
form of financing. As previously stated, once students have received the most amount
of federal aid available to them, they are entitled to a scholarship that
covers the remainder of the fees. However, the roadblock with this particular method
is that is beginning to attract the “upper-middle class” which further displaces the “minority and lower-income
students” who
need it the most (Brownstein, 2017). This is only offered to those who have not
already completed school and received a bachelor’s degree. The same idea is
happening in New York, but with different entitlement options and obligations.
Students “whose
families earn more than $125,000 a year will not be eligible” for the free tuition (Lobosco,
2017).

         When
comparing all three state’s policies side by side, I most support the New York stand
on the situation. Not only did it become the first state to make “tuition free for both two and
four-year colleges”, but it also limited the program to those who do not need
it as much as others. Poverty is an economical disaster to encompasses millions
of Americans, and the price of a higher education should not prohibit a student
from learning other tools and means of success. With the help of the federal
government, as well as cooperation from the states, this program can become
adopted nationally. States should not have to be solely responsible. Funds
should be provided from the government in order to excel. The process and means
of federalism can provide the ultimate opportunity for the establishment of
programming implementation in ranks of national, state, and local proponents.
By using this policy as an example, the separation of powers I feel as though a
unified national program would simply not fit and cater to the needs of all
states. There are too many components that differ between state lines. 

x

Hi!
I'm Isaac!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out