Introduction
Federalism is a system that makes a territory affected by two levels of government: central and local. Unlike a unitary state administration, where the central authority decides every law and its implementation, a federalist country allows a certain level of independence for the local administration. The United States of America and Canada are examples of federalist countries. Each state can make self-directed decisions in lawmaking as long as they do not cross the Constitution. While the central government still has power, each nation has its own level of freedom (Finn & Horwitz, 2013). Federalism is a condition that risks the definition of the sovereignty of an entity due to the contrast to the scope and impact of the dynamic legal frameworks. Apart from the crash between the two sects, federalism is a regulatory practice that renders a contrasting overview of civil liberties, laws, and privacy rules.
Implications for Federalism to Privacy Laws
Positive Impact
Citizens of a federated state are more actively involved in politics. The civilians can decide to which extent the administration can be applied in their private life by supporting or rejecting specific laws regulating this sphere (Kettl, 2020). The rules in a federated nation are flexible, as they meet the demands of the residents. There is no one special law for privacy in the U.S., but there is a number of local acts regulating different aspects of it. For example, such frameworks as the General Data Protection Regulation, California Consumer Privacy Act, ’Children’s Online Privacy Act, and hundreds of others regulate ’people’s privacy in different spheres (California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), 2018). These spheres include business, personal life, trade, and so on.
The whole community approach is an ideology that significantly impacts the security status of the nation. The main reason the aspect is a compelling concept for promoting sustainable living engulfs the ability of individuals from different institutions to collaborate in enhancing the monitoring and prevention of criminal activities. In this case, Homeland security handles minimal illicit operations due to the society’s contribution to the mentorship of the members. The primary role of Homeland security involves monitoring and managing terrorism activities within the American territories (The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018). The integration of the Whole community approach poses a dynamic interplay between Homeland security engagements and American society. Although the agency participates in fighting terrorism, it is an ideology that renders extra exploitation of the resources towards improving security services.
Negative Impact
Each state regulates these spheres according to the needs of its citizens. There are some amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. that regulate the privacy of nationalities. They are the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. These amendments handle such issues as freedom of speech. In order to maintain security, the state periodically intrudes into the private lives of its citizens. Such challenges as terrorism, pandemic, or even oppositionist activity can force the government to break concealment laws. The attitude of the administration to secrecy largely depends on the form of organizational structure. Authoritarian regimes tend to violate the regulations more overtly. For example, they can follow oppositionists, read their messages, and control communications. However, democratic cabinets sometimes break the legal framework in order to maintain security. For example, Edward Snowden leaked information about global surveillance programs that were aimed to watch the citizens (Finn & Horqitz, 2013). It is a practice that aims at ensuring the safety of the citizens from dynamic activities.
Terrorism is an issue that both the Federal government and Homeland security invest resources in to enhance the security of the Americans. Although the concentration of the two defense agencies in the activities in America fosters safety, it is an approach that exhausts the country’s budgeted resources. Apart from radicalism, Homeland security plays a profound role in disaster management (The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018). An excellent example of the programs is rescuing and evacuating victims during hurricanes such as Katrina. The President appoints the Administrator to manage Homeland security. Over the decades, Homeland Security gained resilience in the management of emergencies across the U.S. while fostering to gain track of terrorism activities.
In a different spectrum, the Federal government shirks from its role in fighting terrorism mainly because of the high investment of resources to attain the core objective. The main goal of the administration entails monitoring and neutralizing security situations that threaten the safety of the nationalities and executives to enhance justice. The focus to attain independence in the operations gets overwhelmed by the demand for invested resources (The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018). The DHS fosters an imperative strategy that counters the extra utilization of national resources such as the whole community approach.
Implications for Civil Rights to Privacy Laws
Positive Impact
According to the U.S. Constitution, the federalism concept demands respect for the cultures and legal systems of each state. In a federal nation, there is a government that controls the districts and a number of regional and localized governments that take control over area issues. However, civil rights should be emanated directly from Congress. For example, racial segregation in some countries contradicted the civil rights of citizens. However, the structure develops more flexibility to enhance the relevance and the implementation. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees civil rights to every inhabitant of the U.S. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV, 1787). This development proves that the system defends the voters’ civil rights more effectively than before.
Although different federal laws affect the citizens’ privacy, there are clauses that do not face interference from the essence of the spectrum. An excellent example of the clauses includes the Tort laws. Public and private nuisance refers to the situation where a custodian of holdings allows activities that disturb other individuals either on private or shared accounts. In this case, the owner of the property becomes liable for the accrued damages. The concept is one of the main goals of the majority of individuals mainly because of the liberty attained to engage in vigorous activities. However, the regulations regarding nuisance limit the personnel’s capacity to interfere with the neighbors’ affairs through the development of different clauses. The rule of the problem varies based on the nation; nevertheless, they all feature a similar criterion. All the relative legal frameworks feature the trait of protecting the community from unnecessary damages and devaluation of human life or property (Martin & Price, 2017). The nuisance law charges responsibility to various individuals and entities through the spec of estate ownership, personal injury, and damage after rights violation.
Nuisance refers to the insensitive and offensive activities that interfere with an individual’s life as well as the devaluation of property. However, it is the responsibility of the judges to determine whether certain actions or situations resemble the annoyance in addition to the significant damage rendered to other people. The first element that the judges consider while deciding the violation is the location and the population within the region. In this case, the adjudicator considers the danger rendered from the relative activity and event. Another factor that the ruler uses to determine the intensity of the disturbance is the prior utilization of the land (Martin & Price, 2017). Primarily, the change of use of the land from the previous owner is a factor that highly affects the justification. In an instance that the successor proceeds with the previous use of the land then the magistrate’s decision is against the claimant mainly because of the ideal status quo. Nuisance law is a factor that enhances the variation of a case as a criminal or civil category.
A private nuisance is a form of disturbance that mainly refers to the individual interference of rights over land ownership. One of the case laws that in-depth describes private nuisance is Bamford v. Turnley in 1862. The judge defined the concept as the prevalent activity or occurrence of an event that leads to a substantial interference with the complainants’ land or the use of the property. However, the magistrate established that the key qualification feature for the violation entailed the causation of significant and unlawful damage to the plaintiff. The significant damage, in this case, comprises evidence of either physical or the disfiguring of the amenity. An excellent example of a case study that further defines the essence of the legal framework is Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd (Martin & Price, 2017). The ruler justified that the offense qualified since the deposit of dust on the plaintiff’s premises was capable of causing critical damage to the individual’s health and well-being. Primarily, the justification of the private nuisance depends on the gravity of social benefit and harm caused to the plaintiff.
A private nuisance is a representation of the lawful protection of human rights under the Tort. In this case, the clause focuses on the essence of unreasonable interference than the reasonable grounds for the defendants. Although the well-being of the claimant is prioritized, it is important to establish that not all interferences qualify as a nuisance. An excellent example of a case study is Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan in 1940 (Martin & Price, 2017). Lord Wright established that fallacious interference refers to the interruption of the ordinary mankind’s lifestyle among individuals. A violation of the legal framework is a prominent ideology of the Tort clause of a nuisance that safeguards the well-being of people.
A public nuisance is the violation of the community welfare through such instances as air and noise pollution. In most cases, the public files a complaint regarding the interference of their well-being through such exposure to hazards as chemicals and noise. An excellent example is the case Corby Group Litigation v. Corby Borough Council. The Corby Group Litigation argued that the company endangered the lives of the Corby settlement through the illegal spillage of chemicals onto the community land (Martin & Price, 2017). Therefore, the firm posed a risk to the township’s well-being. The case is a perfect example of the stipulation and the explanation of the nuisance Tort law clause mainly because of the definition of the distinction between the damage caused to the municipality.
Over the decades, the interpretation and application of the nuisance tort law rendered a prominent controversy regarding ownership of land. During the case, the claimants provided significant evidence regarding the damage caused by the company’s activity. The evidence involved the high number of children with health-related issues non-inherited from their parents (Constitution Congress Gov., 2021). In this case, the evidence showed significant damage to the offspring of the families living in Corby hence justifying the ruling.
The case of Corby Group Litigation v. Corby BC is a representation of the distinctive essence of the law in both domains. On the one hand, the precedent showcases public disturbance ideology. The eighteen claimants establish that exposure to toxic chemicals during the pregnancy leads to the crippling of their limbs. The specialty of the case enshrined the ultimate application of the private nuisance clause. The stipulations establish that it is paramount that the claimants’ well-being gets prioritized over the defendant’s purpose for the activity (Constitution Congress Gov., 2021). Therefore, the judge ruled for the claimants due to the relative link of the crippling to the toxic chemical waste deposits within the environment by the Corby Borough company. The defendant lacks the capacity to offer justification against the claimant since the bound evidence physically harmed the residents and mainly the offspring born with deformities in Corby.
Negative Impact
Democracy is a phenomenon that is practiced by politicians at the expense of the citizens. The civil rights to access the basic necessities is an initiative that is negatively affected under the spectrum of federalism. An excellent example is the implementation of legal frameworks that render a conflict between the ministers and the federal cabinet concerned with financial budgets. The legislators focus on passing laws and policies that entice the voters hence securing their position in the next election. Therefore, the legislators fail to terminate the faulty programs to maintain the status quo of popularity (Page & Gilens, 2020). The flawed administrative programs increase stems from the conflict of interests between the elected representatives, the government, and the voters.
One of the main reasons that the faulty government policies get terminated includes destroying legislators’ reputations. The main role of the lawmaker involves enhancing change in the respective states. Therefore, politicians pass laws that favor their member nations at other member countries’ expense. Another reason for the persistent initiation of faulty laws is the capacity to create employment for executive officials through tribunals, committees, and subcommittees (Page & Gilens, 2020). The surge in the number of committees creates a loop for the representatives in establishing employment opportunities for cabinet officials.
Finally, the prevalence of faulty government policies owes to the conflict between bureaucracy and democracy. While it is the duty of the legislators to pass laws and policies, the administration spearheads the implementation process. However, the government prioritizes functional programs over flawed initiatives. As a result, lawmakers take advantage of the ’voters’ lack of knowledge and miscommunication (Page & Gilens, 2020). In this case, the representatives blame the bureaucracy of the executive for the lack of enhancing efficiency from the formalities, thus misdirecting the ’citizens’ emotional appeals and decisions.
One of the faulty government programs that persist in America is the state tax incentive for the motion pictures industry. The development focused on enticing Hollywood from moving its headquarters to a different nation to create employment opportunities in the entertainment industry (Page & Gilens, 2020). However, other countries adopted the program while the budget increased for a chance of securing the opportunity. Although the allotments escalated, at least twelve states withdrew from the framework due to the low fund allocation and the reduced unemployment rate. Ideally, the tax incentive concept is an initiative that rendered the increase in government expenditure in unfeasible programs across various states.
Implications for Civic Liberties to Privacy Laws
Positive Impact
Judgments of local authorities can only be revised by the Supreme Court based on topical issues. Multiple threats, starting from terrorism and ending with pandemics, demand strict governmental control, and the response to challenges “fractures along intergovernmental lines” (Kettl, 2020). An excellent example is the attempt to provide security; the administration can restrict citizens’ freedom of movement or monitor their online activity. Sometimes federalism is not strict enough to function in critical situations (the State of California, 2021). Another demonstration encompasses the fact that during the pandemic, a number of measures were taken to control ’people’s movement, to accept analyses, and so on; the initiatives taken by the U.S. government were not effective enough. This argument is supported by the research conducted by Kettl (2020), who claims that “systematic variations in the representatives’ decision” led to the significant difference in the extent of applying the new anti-pandemic regulations (p. 1). All in all, it means that in critical situations, federal executives can also control voters’ privacy as well, but it cannot be really effective due to the differences between the state regulations.
Preparation, prevention, mitigation, response, and the recovery process render an effective solution in curbing terrorism activities. An interaction between the government security agencies and the community is an effective strategy due to its proactive impact against the enemies. The monitoring of the neighborhoods by the community members is a multifaceted phenomenon that fosters the security of the Americans since it positions Homeland security with adequate information about extremists’ profiles. Strategic curbing of violence involves attaining proactive approaches through the use of adequate profile details of radicalises (The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018). The integration of the whole community approach strengthens the relationship between the local communities and Homeland Security especially in accomplishing the role of emergency management. The rationale of relationship building between the American society and Homeland security enshrines a proper interactive structure.
The Department of Homeland Security fosters an impact on safety since it’s assigned the duty to collect intelligence about domestic protection. The federal government focuses on the essence of seeking justice. In some instances, the federal government interferes with the accountabilities of Homeland security while fostering justice thus leading to the conflict in the objectives. Nevertheless, the DHS’s position at the top of the hierarchy hence rendering more influence on the security state of the country than the contribution of the Federal administration.
Negative Impact
The use of marijuana for treatment purposes is an issue that faces controversies mainly because of the dynamic impacts on the victims. In research, Chan et al. (2017) argue that medical students in Colorado show significant concerns about the use of cannabis as a therapeutic herb due to the side effects to individuals. Legalizing bhang is a concept that revolves around the possibility of exploiting its utilization among the patients. Further, legitimizing increases the professional risk among physicians through license forfeiture. Extensive studies must develop a system that facilitates the legalization and use of the drug for curative purposes.
Marijuana, as a plant offers dynamic therapeutic benefits to both adults and children suffering from different diseases. Haffajee et al. (2018) establish that one of the nutrients in cannabis plants; is, the tetrahydrocannabinol compound provides treatment value to seizures among children. Although the Food and Drug Administration got the approval for the extraction of such compounds, it is contrasting with the Federal law for drug use. According to Chan et al. (2017), medical students agree that it is essential to determine the best system that facilitates the distribution of the herb in the country. On a different spectrum, the Federal government upholds that bhang must be illegalized across American territories, due to its high abuse and addiction rate. The healing value supersedes the Federal law’s abolition, but the side effects of addiction demand further research.
The health benefits of marijuana exceed the Federal law that prohibits its use and distribution in America. Although the drug is addictive, it contains treatment properties for different types of illnesses. The Food and Drug Association allows cannabis use to extract a crucial compound to treat seizures among children. In this case, medical practitioners should be legally allowed to prescribe weed for therapeutic purposes to promote a healthy American society.
Conclusion
Federalism has a controversial impact on privacy and civil laws. On the one hand, it allows different states to control the local regulations, which effectively meets the citizens’ demands. On the other hand, federal systems sometimes are in tension with civil rights, and the government can invade the voters’ privacy for the sake of safety. However, the legislation is developing, and throughout history, new acts and amendments have been adopted to make the legal framework more flexible. Primarily, the impact of unitarianism on privacy laws, civil rights, and liberties is a controversial topic that needs further research despite its adjustable structure allowing the nationalities to control at the local level.
References
Constitution Congress Gov. 2021. U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. Web.
Chan, M. H., Knoepke, C. E., Cole, M. L., McKinnon, J., & Matlock, D. D. (2017). Colorado medical students’ attitudes and beliefs about marijuana. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32(4), 458-463.
Finn, P. & Horwitz, S. (2013). The U.S. charges Snowden with espionage. The Washington Post. Web.
Haffajee, R. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Mello, M. M. (2018). Behind schedule–reconciling federal and state marijuana policy. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(6), 501-4.
Kettl, D. (2020). States Divided: The implications of American federalism for COVID‐19. Public Administration Review, 80(4). 595-602. Web.
Martin, J., & Price, N. (2017). Law. Web.
Page, B. I., & Gilens, M. (2020). Democracy in America?: What has gone wrong, and what we can do about it. University of Chicago Press.
State of California. 2021. California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Web.
The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2018). National Disaster. Web.