Paper one for American Political Systems

Paper one for American Political Systems - Tayler ODea...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tayler O’Dea Federalism 2010, The 1 st Paper PSCI 1101: Section 116 Jay Rothrock October 12, 2010 Federalism: Balancing Powers Federalism exposes the heart of our governmental system; defining how the founding fathers organized the rules we live by. It is the relationship between the powers of the federal government and the states. This is written in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution revealing only the powers that are not delegated to the federal level are reserved to the states. This amendment, being very vague in its language, is subject to heavy debate of its interpretation. Views that states should have more independency of their actions collide with views that a more centralized government is needed to overlook state affairs and enforce actions upon them. A specific example of this debate is seen in newly proposed bills, Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) and America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act (ACCWA), both intending to extend the current policies of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Competing positions for and against this spur, as dramatic attention focuses again on the big picture; the dispute over the authority of the national government verses the authority of government at a state level. Looking at the specific debate of the CWA and evaluating each side provokes a clear conclusion of how modern day federalism is portrayed. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the common name to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that has been through a hearty timeline of amending and redeveloping. As it stands, “the objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
navigable waters be eliminated” (Federal Water Pollution Control Act 2002, 3). Enumerated throughout the act is more on the position of the federal government and its goal in preventing the U.S. waters from being polluted and doing so by maintenance, permits and regulation. The basis for this act was conceived in 1948 and then reorganized and expanded in 1972, 1977, and 1987. Every time there was a great deal more federal control on the waters across the United States. Today it is up for revision once more. The reason for almost every revision of the CWA is due to the bold word above: “navigable” and what that implies for the federal government’s jurisdiction of authority. The term navigable, seemingly insignificant, poses this deeper debate because it argues the implied powers within the Act. It provokes the question, which United States waters are subject to federal regulation? Currently, the word “navigable” determines that waters under the jurisdiction of EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are “waters which provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods” (Arnold 22). Only the waters of this sort are
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/07/2011 for the course ENVD 3114 taught by Professor Pyatt during the Spring '10 term at University of Colorado Denver.

Page1 / 8

Paper one for American Political Systems - Tayler ODea...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online