American Devolution Since the 1960s

June 28, 2015

American Devolution since the 1960s

The US government can be said, according to Peterson, to be significantly elaborate politically. The physical coverage of the country is also extensively large for the central government to handle singlehandedly. However, the poor policies of the traditional government incited protests that pressured the central government to devolve powers for the efficient running of the states. As a result, the need to empower the states into self-efficient regions became inevitable. However, the resultant divisions could not function effectively without financial or resource aid from the central government.  The existing laws were also doomed and, therefore, created a barrier to effective governance. As a result, political force pushed for a useful devolution with the aim of achieving a fully operational state.

The federal government is known to have passed various milestones that have melded it into the currently observed robust nature. American devolution can be said that contributed by a vast array of aspects. The fundamental issues that spurred American devolution include social, philosophical, political, and economic tenets. An entirely devolved state was perceived to achieve self-sufficiency in various ways. Economic balance was observed to be achievable through better distribution of costs and benefits to the citizens. However, the laws of the traditional government did not allow for such efficient and significant advancement. The previously observed formidable pattern that undermined the state’s powers concept was finally broken in the 1660s. The mounting pressure from the civil rights groups triggered the desired move for the central government to empower the states. As such, the central government was constitutionally obliged to exercise its power of converting the states into self-sufficiently functional units.

A vast array of Supreme cases and legislations contributed towards American devolution since the 1960s. American courts, therefore, worked towards administering devolution in a broad range of ways. Baker versus Carr case (1962) is known to have established the one man one vote principle. This ruling created effective strategies for creating congressional districts. The voting policy also enhanced an extremely equitable system of representing citizens across different states. The Engel versus Vitale case of 1992 also prohibited the creation of an official state prayer or reciting of such prayer in public.

Patterson describes the case occurred in 1964, when the U.S. Supreme Court sharpened the Alabama State Court by overturning a libel judgment placed by the later court against The New York Times. The Supreme Court had sensed the malice nature of the case and, therefore, prompted the need to overrule the initial decision by the State’s Court. The defective Alabama law had marked the subject editorial advertisement in the New York Times as libellous. For this reason, it compelled the media house to compensate the supposedly humiliated individuals. The Supreme Court decision shows the evolved nature of the American judicial systems that promote justice to every individual.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the use of discriminatory criteria of disbursing federal grants and, therefore, improved equitable share among states.

The 1965 Miranda versus Arizona court case also affirmed that arrested citizens have rights that the law enforcing agents must respect. The Voting Rights Act (1965) empowered the federal government in terms of reforming the electoral rules that undermined the welfare of the local and state governments. The Medicaid (1965) program gave power to the federal government by necessitating individual states to offer some medical assistance to the poor.

1967 Loving versus Virginia case further asserted the need to adhere to the marriage laws of the different states. The 1967 Keyishian versus Board of Regents Case pushed the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify a New York law prohibiting the employment of university and public school teachers belonging to perceived subversive groups. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of academic freedom and expression, which the later court recognized as a transcendent value to all people and not only the teachers involved. In the late 1960s, the government resolved the eligibility conditions for the AFDC, an action, which curtailed the autonomy of the states in respect to public welfare.