Can Someone Help Me to Understand Feudalism and Federalism?

[hang a left]

I have read many postings recently with these words in them. I would like to get a firm grasp on their meanings. It appears they have alot to do with discussions of the movement by the Xian right and activist judges. Appreciate it.

[Darkstar4444]

1. Of Kings and Presidents

Feudalism is rule by a heraldic monarch, king, queen, duke, etc. Directly appointed by God (who's?. Federalism is rule by an single personal. If directly elected, President. If appointed by the majority party in "Congress" he is a Prime Minster.

[northzax]

2. slight quibble here

feudalism is better described as a confederation of inherited rulers who's rule is legitimised by having one superior heraldic ruler, selected by God (through familial succession, usually) who in turn grants local rule to heraldic barons.

Federalism is the mirror image, with the smaller states choosing the central leader.

It's a question of where legitimacy and sovereignty lies, is the state the sum of the parts? or are the parts simply pieces of the state? Does authority flow outwards, or inwards?

[ulTRAX]

5. federalism?

northzax wrote: "Federalism is the mirror image, with the smaller states choosing the central leader."

I have to disagree. There's nothing inherent in federalism that requires what you claim. However, those choosing federal systems do so because of differences that might prohibit a unitary system. As we see in the US, the smaller units demanded and were granted in the Constitution a bigger voice than their state populations deserve. Our system is anti-democratic because on occasion the states align up in a manner that produces morally illegitimate minority government as we have with Bush. Combine that with an anti-democratic Senate... and the two can in theory pack the judiciary or enter the US into international treaties opposed by the majority of the population. Hell... currently a mere 4-4.5% of the US population in small states can block any amendment to the Constitution... while I believe that there's about 25% of the population in the 3/4 states needed to for ratification.

The Framers foolishly based all these formulas on states and didn't take into consideration demographic trends. Our Constitution is not just anti-democratic but now virtually reform-proof.

[northzax]

6. I believe you misread my point

and further that your analysis of the flaws in the US system of federalism are not neccesarily contrary to what I described.

I never said that federalism was an equal share system or that it is democratic, only that in federalism the several parties to the central government grant legitimacy to that central power. This is traditionally based on a georgaphic distribution of power among the several states. Simply because, as you put it, the "Framers foolishly based all these formulas on states and didn't take into consideration demographic trends" does not undermine federalism as a system, the power, at least on paper, is still derived from the several states which are party to the Constitution. Whether or not each state is equal in power or has unequal shares dependant on population (or wealth, or military power, or altitude) the system still grants legitimacy to the centralised uberstate from the consent of the individual states. That is, to me, the definition of federalism.

You chose to make a moral judgement, whereas I chose to define a system of administration, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[ulTRAX]

7. you may be correct

I was responding to your statement: "Federalism is the mirror image, with the smaller states choosing the central leader."
and I took it to mean something other than what you clearly meant. Feel free to administer a dope slap.

[hang a left]

3. Hey thanks..........

and Welcome to DU Darkstar!!!!

[saline]

4. um, i wish to politely disagree

I would check a dictionary

Feudalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feudalism

I was always under the impression that the key to feudalism was the division of land between lords who answered to the king (who was usually chosen by "god"). It was a strict hierarchy with strong importance placed upon the ownership and loyalty to certain parts of land.

Federalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=federalism

I have no idea where you were going with this. Federalism is the kind of hub and spoke approach to government that we (currently) use in the United States. There is a centralized hub, the federal government, that interacts and plays power games with the spokes, local government. We used to be a con-federal system where the federal government was supposed to have very limited power and the states much more power. This was so that power was concentrated closer to the individual so you weren't being ruled by someone who didn't share your thoughts and values. Remember they were emerging from and trying to fight against the system of monarchy so the individual's rights and preferences were given great importance, or at least, more importance.

In my experience when people talk about federalism they're talking about the balance of power between the states and the federal government. For instance, is marriage a state issue or a federal issue? Federalists (to grossly oversimplify democrats have traditionally been federalists) would tend toward it being a federal issue. States rights people (con-federalists) would tend to argue it's a more local or state issue.

Hope that helps and my goal here is not to be mean to Darkstar whom I welcome to DU but to try and catch a small mistake and fix it.