Talk:Dual federalism

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Revision[edit]

I like the work done about a month ago, but it reads very one-sidedly, and makes some lay mistakes (which I'll keep correcting as I find them). For example, no mention is made of the transition of away from the moniker "dual federalism" in the shift of the debate toward state "police power" (as first raised in City of New York v. Miln), the extent of that police power, and the debate to this day over the existence, if any, and extent of federal police power (such as in Champion v. Ames). Dual federalism just didn't end and disappear after the Civil War. More like the argument pivoted and the jargon got changed. Any other opinions and discussion are welcomed. --Foofighter20x (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dual federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dual federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observations[edit]

Has anyone noticed the introduction makes the topic of "dual federalism" sound alive and well but get to the bottom of article and it says the concept is "dead"? I wish this article could be re-written in an intellectually more honest way. It needs a more neutral point of view. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tautological[edit]

Dual is already stated in the word federal itself. Saying "dual federalism" is redundant, like, 'two dualism.'

If there were no political subdivisions, it couldn't be called a federal government, because it would be a unitary government.

Skimming the reference list, I was surprised the first citation to use the redundant 'dual federalism' was an article written by one of my undergrad political science professors, Cliff Staten. He wasn't the university's constitutional law professor. He is a noted expert on Cuba, though. 71.64.204.110 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that another form of federalism (cooperative) exists says otherwise to the claim of the term being redundant. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]