How Does The Structure Of The Federal Government Lead To Experienced Leaders

What kind of government does the US have?

First two answers are very good. I’d like to add that at this point, and in the recent past (9+ years), we’ve had a dysfunctional one. The basic theories of US governing is that a) the people are represented (where people=citizens, one person one vote); and b) that each of the three branches serve as a check/balance against either of the others gaining unbalanced power. These concepts are being severely tested these days. During Obama, the opposition party decided to resist EVERYTHING, regardless of the quality or merit of what Obama tried to do. This culminated in the unprescidented SEIZURE of the open Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia, by failing to hold hearings on the Obama nominee. They just waited about a year until after the 2016 election, when it turned out that the GOP/Trump could pick and confirm a new nominee.Now that both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the President control the Legislative branch and the Executive branch, the remaining balance can only be reestablished by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS)… which is now very split on the most critical issues facing the US… helped in part by the GOP “THEFT” of the SCOTUS seat that was rightfully Obama’s to fill.We also see that the GOP controlled House of Representatives and all of its committees and subcommittees that typically would provide oversight of the Executive branch has failed to give serious oversight and investigation of Trump-presidency related issues, and some suspect that at least one of the committee chairs has actually colluded with the Executive branch by leaking information collected by the investigators. (turns out that THAT chairman of THAT committee was part of the Trump campaign).But the issue that strains the fabric of the American government, is the enormous role that money plays in our politics. Only millionaires and billionaires can afford to fund the expenses of a presidential campaign, and other lower national and state levels as well. This was adjudicated by the SCOTUS in the “Citizens United” case ruling wherein SCOTUS decided that MONEY=SPEECH, and Speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Meaning that restrictions on money in politics are impermissible. So we are now into the phase in US history that will probably be known as The American Oligarchy.

How did federalism decentralize politics and policies?

It didn’t. That’s one of the misconceptions of our Constitution. Most people believe that federalism means taking power from the central government and giving it to the states (Thomas Jefferson, who was in France at the time, would spend the rest of his life pushing this belief). Most people who believe this usually point to the 10th amendment as proof. In reality it did just the opposite.Prior to 1787 America was a confederation, which is to say thirteen separate political entities aligned by treaties and alliances similar to the modern EU. This system was disastrous and on the brink of collapse, inspiring the drafting of the Constitution. The Constitution replaced the confederation with a federal system in which the states would elect representatives to the federal government, which would be vested with authority over the country at large. It should be remembered that initially neither the President, nor the Senate was elected by the people, only the House of Representatives, making the house a Republican system, while the President, Senate, and all federal courts are federal system.Federalism is NOT designed to be more democratic, it is designed to be more republican. Today we focus on the founders suspicion of tyrannical central government (which is mostly based on Jefferson who, again, nothing to do with the Constitution or its ratification). There were just as many founders deeply skeptical of rule based on the emotional whims of farmers and blacksmiths with a forth grade education. Hamilton, among others, feared mob rule and was just as interested in checking the people as the leaders. Hence, within the federalist system, the people choose state representatives who then choose federal officers, who then choose judges to lifetime appointments. It takes power away from the people and invests more power into the hands of trained and experienced professionals.The problem of course was, in order to become a legitimate government required the concept of the people. The states didn’t particularly like giving up their soverignty to a centralized government a three days drive away. The tenth amendment was added as a concession to the state in order to get them to sign on to the new government.

What does this mean"federal in form and unitary in spirit" with regards to Indian Constitution?

The leadership of India during the 1940's had a clear view what form of government would suit India at that time. Nehru as well as other Congress leadership wanted to have a strong central government which could have a substantial hold on the states. This was necessary because India was at a very fragile state. Due to the demand of Pakistan and demand from other parts of India to create different countries on the basis of language ethnicity, etc, the leaders were very apprehensive in creating a strong federation as it may lead to disintegration of India into many countries. It should be remembered that India is not a nation-state but a state nation. We have strong allegiance towards our native land, language, ethnicity, community, culture and religion. In a common man's conscience the nation comes at the end. This is reason which lead to the creation of Andhra Pradesh and later Telangana. There have been demand for separation from north-east states like Nagaland. Why? Because the cultural differences between this part of India and the mainland is very huge. A local of a remote village in Nagaland may not associate himself with India and Bharat Mata. Our leaders were very aware of this fact and wanted to have a strong central government to prevent the disintegration of India. Jinnah wanted a different scheme he was in favour of strong federationto. He as late as 1946 envisaged an India comprised of three groups: One, including the provinces of Pakistan together with a united Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir, a united Bengal and Assam as another, and the remainder of Hindu-majority India as the third and largest. Each of the blocks would have powers over all internal matters, with defence and foreign affairs reserved for the centre. But this was not closer to what Nehru had in mind and so a consensus could not be reached. Which ultimately lead to the partition of India.Ref:Nehru, the real founder of Pakistan – Telegraph BlogsNature of Indian Constitution: Federal or Unitary or Quasi-federal - Important India

What is an example of national, state, and local governments working together?

It’s fairly common with public works projects. The federal government funds a grant program for roads or sewage plants or flood control giving money to the states who then allocate it to the cities. Often the state has a minor role. These are especially common during hard economic times when the grant is intended for “shovel ready” projects that put construction crews to work very quickly.Another common example is law enforcement. All those fancy armored cars used by local police are from the federal government to support fighting violent crimes such as heavily armed drug dealers. Many are demilitarized army trucks and the federal government can take them back in times of war.These type of programs are one way for the federal government to influence local leaders and policy. For example, many suburbs don’t want a bus service, but they’re willing to take a federal grant to pay for a new road that requires bus lanes to be built. The local goal is roads paid for by someone else. The federal policy interest is enabling jobs for unemployed inner city residents without cars, employee mobility, air pollution reduction, etc. Funny how locals are willing to give up control when “free money” is involved.

How corrupt are governments around the world?

Throughout the world, corruption do exist. It cannot be dispensed with, unless, earning and spending are well organized. Corruption is not the only one, which we generally describe as graft.  But, any action of an individual, to get the things done other than the normal course, is corruption. This habit is universal, and can be contained only through, going into the life style of an individual. Income, savings, and expenditure have to be audited to ascertain the level of corruption. High income and abnormal profit are to labeled as corruption. Wide variation in income level is the major cause for corruption. So corruption can be contained, only through, administrative and ideological shake up.

Why does the American military make its members move so much?

Another answer that none has pointed out yet is one of loyalty. The vast majority of soldgers finthe US military join to serve their country and are loyal to their ideals and love of our country. However, many of the greatest dictators through the history have achieved their power through strong and corrupting ties to military leaders. The pattern in the US military of frequent moves creates an environment where the loyalty of the soldiers and officers are tied to the country they serve not to an individual leader in their command.This may not have been the primary intention when the they first instituted this practice, but we can see the advantage of checks and balances like this through the the military, and indeed all govermental forms.The three branches of the federal government's military act in concert with each other while providing the ability to check another branch in needed. The federal troops and suplimented by state guards men, that may be able to respond as a form of check to federal action. I will point out though that these forms of checks and balances were and are not seriously I tended but could be used if absolutely necessary.The three branches of the federal government forms a series of checks and balances.To round it up, the US government is designed as a series of institutions with tradition, momentum, and drive of their own. These institutions are designed to push through corruption, bad or inept leaders, and all manner of other chalanges, the military used rotation of troops as one way to protect the institution of the military from the failings of both the individuals and failings of the collective.

What were the failures of the Articles of Confederation?

Since the midpoint of the Revolutionary War, Washington had urged reforming the Articles of Confederation. Particularly, he knew the powers of the national government had to be strengthened so it could raise revenues and regulate commerce. The Articles did not allow Congress to tax. It was up to the states when they wanted to give money to the central government. As a result, Congress had to borrow money to fund the war. The national debt skyrocketed, resulting in a crippling inflation and depression. Paper money was worthless. Debtors feared foreclose and debtor prison. States, desperate to pay off interest on debt accumulated during the war, raised taxes several times. This undermined commerce, leading to a collapse in wages and increased unemployment. States applied tariffs against one another, restricted inter-state trade. Despite this, it took Shays’ Rebellion, an uprising by Massachusetts farmers desperate to shut down courts to prevent the start of bankruptcy proceedings against them, to convince the country that reform was needed. In the summer of 1787, a convention was held in Philadelphia to reform the Articles. The delegates immediately decided to throw out the Articles and create a new constitution that would strengthen the central government and allow it to deal with the economic crisis. Washington was unanimously elected to be the Convention’s president, granting the Convention legitimacy in the eyes of Americans. As president, Washington was expected to stay out of the debates. But he had an intense interest in the arguments that shaped the Executive Branch. Everyone in the room took for granted that he would become the first President of the United States. Although wary of monarchy, the Convention created such a strong presidency only because they knew that Washington would set a standard for the judicious exercise of power. They trusted him because he had surrendered his power after the war (more on this later). Washington’s role at the Convention was a clear endorsement of the new constitution. This, along with the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, allowed the Constitution to get ratified.