A Strong, Centrlized Government vs. Fifty Strong State Governments Research Paper

A Strong, Centrlized Government vs. Fifty Strong State Governments - query Paper ExampleUltimately, it was decided that a stronger, rallyized judicature was needed. Through the use of historical reference books as well as the internet and current, bookish documents, I will show that this is the best situation for the coupled States of America, to promote unity, stability, and continuity throughout the country. Fifty States, One Nation, One Government Unity, Stability, and Continuity for the United States of America The debate over who, exactly, should hold power as far as a government was concerned in the United States has stretched back to compound times. After securing victory in the War for Indep terminalence, the Founding Fathers came together to draft, frame, and ratify the Constitution, while the debate over who exactly should hold government power began. deuce parties emerged, one who favored a strong nation-state with a centralized government over all the states, and ano ther that favored the power being in the give of the individual states with a more modest, almost powerless central government (Brinkley, 2004). Much, to be sure, was at stake, not the least of which was the future of the entire fledgling country. Upon the end of the War for Independence, most people believed themselves to be citizens of separate countries, not states within one country, and were unwilling to turn over governmental power to a central government. The people had, after all, just dealt with the tyranny of one King, and were not keen to replace him with another (Davidson & Stoff, 1998). However, as history has proved, when states are given the power to do what they please, chaos can and will ensue, needing a strong and central hand to bring all parties to common ground. In the seemingly endless debate among the rights of individual states versus a centralized federal government holding power, there can be no doubt that a strong, centralized federal government is neede d to ensure unity, continuity, and stability throughout the United States of America. Historically, some things have caused disaster when put into the hands of the state governments. In the aftermath of the War for Independence, severally state printed its own cash, which caused confusion due to the fact that the money of one state was worthless or not worth the same price in another state (Davidson & Stoff, 1998). This concept was proved even years later in the nation, when states once again tried to control their own banking system. In 1836, in a fit of rage, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the measure that would have allowed the Second Bank of the United States, a relatively stable national bank, to continue trading operations (Brinkley, 2004). Without it, the chaos of money madness that descended upon the country was literally unparalleled, and threw the country into the Panic of 1837 (Brinkley, 2004). It is therefore best that states have given control of all matters dealing with money to the federal government, and one nationalized banking system and one form of currency used throughout the nation. Though it cannot be denied that such a national banking system has not solved all money woes, as was seen by the Great Depression, it is still better and preferable to finding exchange centers for money dotting state lines with their presence. Having one pecuniary system, under the control of one government,