1)The Canadian state is comprised of two pillars - identity these two pillars and explain how they potentially contradict each other?

 

With reference to Question 1, some state institutions are given the label 'organs of state' to highlight their special status. What distinguishes organs of state from other more ordinary state institutions? 

 

2)What were the two broad political obstacles which federalism helped overcome that

made Confederation possible? 

Federalism is a constitutional structure in which a federal legislature and state or provincial legislatures divide government authority and responsibility. In the modern sense, a real union is a state in which the smaller pieces are not independent and can not secede legally. Canadian federalism, in practice, has moved between the extremes of centralizing and decentralizing power. There is the authority over the whole nation through the federal government. There is the authority for of the provincial government over its part of the population and area. Both levels of government derive their power from the written Constitution of Canada, but it contains elements that are incompatible with a strict approach to federalism. Across the history of the nation, Canadian federalism has been checked. It continues to be a topic of great discussion.

A confederation is a union of sovereign groups or states joined for the purposes of collective action (also known as a confederacy or league). Confederations of states, typically formed by a treaty, tend to be founded to deal with vital issues such as security, foreign affairs, internal trade, or currency, with the general government being expected to provide all its members with support. Confederalism is a primary type of intergovernmental, described as any form of interaction between states that takes place on the basis of government or sovereign independence.

Step-by-step explanation

The Canadian state is comprised of two pillars - identity these two pillars and explain how they potentially contradict each other?

Enterprise capability and economic capacity are the two main pillars that make up the Canadian state. Canadians are called upon to make numerous decisions on a regular and constant basis in terms of economic ability. Most of these decisions are affected by trends, shifts, and realities, as well as global, national, and global factors in their economic and economic circumstances. It is important for Canadians to have an understanding of basic economics and how economic reality can influence their choices in order to make successful and informed decisions. Promoting enhanced economic potential is the priority of the Canadian state. The other cornerstone is Enterprising Capacity. Enterprising people are agents of modification. They are described as seekers of opportunity. Such individuals create new ideas and help to organize capital to see progress and change. Some prefer to be entrepreneurs and build new companies with new goods and services to deal with challenges, desires, and needs. Enterprise skills, attitudes, and skills, however, can help any person, regardless of the nature of the endeavor, run a school, run a household, run a non-profit social service organization, work as an employee, and start a company. Enterprise capacity building is a pillar linked to the support of enhanced capacity. Enterprise capacity, however, focuses on business start-ups, while economic capacity focuses on the economy's overall growth.

Some state institutions are given the label 'organs of state' to highlight their special status. What distinguishes organs of state from other more ordinary state institutions? 

Organs of State - any of the three primary divisions of a state's sovereignty (namely, the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary); the powers of each having been divided and balanced in accordance with the political principle of the separation of powers.

The Constitution defines three state organs with distinct powers and responsibilities assigned to each of these organs: the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The Parliament and the State Assemblies are made of the Legislature. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Council of Ministers and officials of the ministries, at the level of both the Union and the Administration. The Judiciary in various States consists of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and lower courts. The enclave shows original chairs of the Parliament's President, the Prime Minister of India, and the Supreme Court's Chief Justice, with an interactive digital computer for the study of the three State organs.

• The Legislature

Making legislation is the distinctive feature of all legislatures. However, legislatures also have other responsibilities in most structures, such as government selection and criticism, administration oversight, appropriation of funds, ratification of treaties, the impeachment of executive and judicial officials, approval or rejection of executive appointments, determination of election processes, and public petition hearings. Legislatures are not just legislative bodies, then. Neither do they monopolize the position of law-making. The executive has the power of veto over legislation in most systems, and, even where this is absent, the executive can exercise original or delegated legislative powers. Judges also frequently engage in the lawmaking process, through the interpretation and implementation of laws, or through judicial review of legislation, as in the U.S. system. Similarly, in making laws and determining cases before administrative tribunals, administrative officials exercise quasi-legislative powers.

In their scale, the processes they employ, the role of political parties in legislative action, and their vitality as representative bodies, legislatures vary significantly. The British House of Commons is one of the largest in number, with more than 600 members; many small island countries, by comparison, have legislative bodies of less than 20 members. Bicameral legislatures are common in many countries, such as the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, and India, particularly those with a federal form of government. In small countries and those with a unitary form of government, such as New Zealand and Denmark, unicameral legislatures are common. However, a federal system does not necessarily imply a bicameral legislature, nor do all unitary systems have unicameral legislatures.

• The Executive

Government officials who engage in the decision and course of government policy are political executives. They include heads of state and government leaders, including presidents, prime ministers, premiers, chancellors, and other chief executives, as well as many secondary figures, such as members of the cabinet and ministers, councilors, and heads of agencies. Through this description, in the U.S. national government, there are several thousand elected officials, including the president, thousands of political appointees in the departments of the cabinet, in the agencies, in the commissions, and in the White House personnel, and hundreds of senior civil servants. The same is true of the most advanced political structures, which involve very broad executive and administrative institutions for the development and execution of government policy.

The position assigned to the chief executive is the key element in the organization of a national executive. The president is both the political head of the government and also the ceremonial head of state in presidential structures, such as in the United States. The prime minister is the national political leader in parliamentary structures, such as in Great Britain, but another person, a monarch or elected president, acts as the head of state. The president serves as head of state in hybrid presidential-parliamentary structures, such as that set up in France under the 1958 constitution, but also exercises considerable legislative powers, including the appointment of a prime minister and cabinet to act as the administration.

The 20th century saw a dramatic rise in the powers of chief executives in virtually all political systems, including in constitutional democracies where executive duty is exercised by free elections. Like the office of the Prime Minister in Britain, the office of the president in the United States has significantly extended the scope of its authority. The introduction of more constitutional limits on the misuse of executive powers while maintaining their benefits for the successful rule is one of the challenges of representative government.

• The Judiciary

Judges are significant players in the policy-making process, including lawmakers and executives; and courts, such as legislatures and administrative agencies, enact codes of conduct that are law-like. However, the judicial decision-making or adjudication process is unique in that it deals with particular cases in which a person has come into conflict with society by breaching its norms or in which individuals have come into conflict with each other, and it uses structured processes which are different from those of legislative or administrative bodies.

In all advanced political systems, existing court systems are found. Two judicial hierarchies typically exist, one dealing with civil cases and the other with criminal cases, each with a large number of local courts, a smaller number at the provincial or regional level, and one or more national courts. In Britain, for instance, this is the pattern of judicial organization. While there is a double hierarchy in some countries, for example, France, the difference is not between courts dealing with criminal cases and other courts dealing with civil cases, but rather between those dealing with both civil and criminal cases and those dealing with administrative cases or challenges to the state administrative authority. The United States has two court systems that represent the federal organization of its government: one set of national courts and 50 sets of state courts. By comparison, there is only one integrated court system in Germany, which is a federal government agency.

What were the two broad political obstacles which federalism helped overcome that made Confederation possible? 

Although the benefits of federalism almost certainly outweigh the costs for most scholars writing in this field, in many circumstances, federalism faces some potential challenges in application. Three obstacles of this nature are:

1)Federalism can produce unequal outcomes between states, across communities, and for individuals living within these different jurisdictions. For citizens living within these various jurisdictions, federalism may generate unequal results across states, across populations, and for individuals. Owing to varying levels of economic development across states and also within states and local communities, unequal results are frequently correlated with economic inequality. Observe the disparities in wealth and opportunity that occur within each location when moving from city to city, state to state. These disparities are often a feature of the capacity of the city or state to retain an economic base or to develop and respond to changing economic conditions.

States and cities have historically varied greatly in their degree of political and social equality. In certain areas of the South, for example, for decades, individual opportunities were systematically biased to favor whites over people of color. A destructive Civil War, substantial changes to the U.S. Constitution, and a variety of U.S. landmark statutes and watershed decisions. The Supreme Court has all sought to resolve significant inequality created by a malevolent expression of the rights of the state in the service of racial discrimination, all authorized by the federal institution.

• Federalism potentially produces inefficiency through policy replication. Via policy repetition, federalism theoretically creates inefficiency. Every state and local government formulates, funds, and implements public policy independently. This is a good thing in many respects because each state and local government has its own unique set of requirements and cultural principles encoded in its public policy. Nevertheless, there are additional costs of getting each state and the local government essentially replicating many policy decisions. In certain cases, providing a single standard policy that addresses the needs of all people in a specific field of public life effectively and efficiently will be more beneficial.
• Federalism can, at times, cloud our understanding of who is responsible for public policy outcomes. Federalism can, at times, cloud our awareness of who is accountable for the consequences of public policy. Many government units overlap in federalism and, at times, the policy priorities of multiple levels of government clash, i.e. their strategies could be diametrically opposed. Constituents also want to know why things are either not being done or not being handled in a way that represents their interests when policy failure results. The finger-pointing spectacle through multiple levels and government units leaves people frustrated and, at times, angry with the overall government.