We condemn the war and support Ukraine in its struggle for democratic values.
We also encourage you to join the #StandWithUkraine movement by making a donation at this link
Devolution in the USA

Devolution is the process of transferring the economic and political powers to the subnational units of governance with the sole aim of bringing resources close to the people. It is seen as a one way of redistribution of wealth and income to avoid huge income disparities witnessed in various countries especially in third world countries.

The United States of America adopted devolution system of government long time ago. There are various factors that led to agitation and enactment of the various legislations to facilitate the devolution of powers to subnational governments. First of all, it was meant to bring resources closer to the American people. This was geared towards empowering people to gain economic freedom and efficiency since the Constitution recognizes the need of Americans to be financially stable and live a decent lifestyle with the ability to afford basic services such as health, education, decent housing, and water supply.

It was also meant to bring power closer to the people. In the United States, many states were occupied by people who shared common ancestry and history especially those that were not originally from Americas. These people needed a system in which they were able to formulate their own laws, because they feared that centralized power could discriminate against them. People felt that it was important to have laws that govern their state in a way that it is widely accepted by the majority of people in that state.

Several court cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court in the United States had a bearing on the process of devolution in America. A case in point is that of Rose vs. Rose which was an appeal from the court of Tennessee. In this case, the appellant was a disabled veteran whose source of income was federal veteran’s benefits. He was directed by a Tennessee court to pay a given portion of such amount for child support. He had faulted to make his payments obligation and consequently was held for the contempt of court; he appealed the decision of Tennessee court emanating from the statutes of the Tennesseestate. The supreme court held that the appellant had a legal duty to make payments from his federal veteran benefit since the federal laws does not in any way conflict with the laws of the state of Tennessee. The implication here is that the Constitution of America recognized the existence of state governments and statutes and that it does not conflict with them. This implies that devolution should take roots and that the federal laws recognize its legality and existence of its authority.

The laws of the state government must, however, be consistent with the fundamental rights of individuals as enshrined in the Constitution. In the case of California vs Acevedo, the victim was seen by police leaving from the house of a suspected marijuana dealer carrying a paper bag. The police found drug in his car, but the California court ruled that he could not be convicted on drug charges, because the search was not warranted. The Supreme Court held that one was bound to be searched while in custody consistent with the constitution of the US under the fourth amendment.

Bush’s administration strengthened federal government through the formulation of various policies and legislation. He proposed a tax cut with the aim of stimulating the economy by putting more money into people’s pocket thus creating employment and increasing national income to facilitate the working of federal government.

He also issued policy to federal police to desist them from looking at people’s skin color and race while conducting their routine patrols around the country. He described the move as discriminative, racist, retrogressive, and one that undermines the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people regardless of their origin. This set precedent even in the state government since they had to abide by this rule, and this further strengthened the federal government.

He also signed into law the bill illegalizing the abortion in the United States of America. The Supreme Court upheld this ban as appropriate as it had done in an earlier ruling. This move strengthened the federal government since no state statutes could be inconsistent with it and its consequent operation.

Order now

Related essays