Question: What is the difference between multi-level political forms and federalism?

Answer: the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. <hl> What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established . <hl> This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is <hl> the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established <hl>. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.

What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is <hl> the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established <hl> .

question: What is the difference between multi-level political forms and federalism?, context: Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.


Question: What is an example of a federal union?

Answer: the European Union

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. <hl> The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union . <hl>

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is <hl> the European Union <hl>.

The leading example of the federal union of states is <hl> the European Union <hl> .

question: What is an example of a federal union?, context: Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.


Question: What is the Latin word for federalism?

Answer: foedus

<hl> The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus , meaning treaty, pact or covenant. <hl> Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word <hl> foedus <hl>, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word <hl> foedus <hl> , meaning treaty, pact or covenant.

question: What is the Latin word for federalism?, context: The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.


Question: What was federalism and confederalism common meaning in the 18th century?

Answer: a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty.

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. <hl> Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. <hl> It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was <hl> a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. <hl> They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

question: What was federalism and confederalism common meaning in the 18th century?, context: The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.


Question: What did James Madison referred to the new United States as?

Answer: 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. <hl> It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both ' (ie. <hl> neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as <hl> 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both <hl>' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.

It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as <hl> 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both <hl> ' (ie.

question: What did James Madison referred to the new United States as?, context: The terms 'federalism' and 'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning treaty, pact or covenant. Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore initially synonyms. It was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new United States as 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both' (ie. neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two). In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word 'federalism'.


Question: Where does the federalist model work best in?

Answer: homogeneous states

<hl> Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. <hl> Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely <hl> homogeneous states <hl> such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

question: Where does the federalist model work best in?, context: Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.


Question: What are homogeneous states?

Answer: United States, Germany or Australia

<hl> Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia , but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. <hl> Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the <hl> United States, Germany or Australia <hl>, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the <hl> United States, Germany or Australia <hl> , but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland.

question: What are homogeneous states?, context: Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.


Question: Where can tensions be found in the federalist countries?

Answer: Canada

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. <hl> Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. <hl> Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as <hl> Canada <hl> and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

question: Where can tensions be found in the federalist countries?, context: Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.


Question: What countries did the federalist model fail in?

Answer: Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. <hl> Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test. <hl>

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as <hl> Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia <hl> collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

question: What countries did the federalist model fail in?, context: Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.


Question: What countries dismissed the federalist model?

Answer: Ukraine or Syria

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. <hl> Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria . <hl> Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as <hl> Ukraine or Syria <hl>. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.

Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as <hl> Ukraine or Syria <hl> .

question: What countries dismissed the federalist model?, context: Whilst it is often perceived as an optimal solution for states comprising different cultural or ethnic communities, the federalist model seems to work best in largely homogeneous states such as the United States, Germany or Australia, but there is also evidence to the contrary such as in Switzerland. Tensions between territories can still be found in federalist countries such as Canada and federation as a way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Lybia or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in countries such as Ukraine or Syria. Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test.


Question: In the United States, what was federalism referred to?

Answer: belief in a stronger central government.

<hl> In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. <hl> This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to <hl> belief in a stronger central government. <hl> When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

question: In the United States, what was federalism referred to?, context: In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.


Question: When the U.S Constitution was being drafted, what did the federalist party support?

Answer: stronger central government

<hl> In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government . <hl> When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a <hl> stronger central government <hl>. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a <hl> stronger central government <hl> .

question: When the U.S Constitution was being drafted, what did the federalist party support?, context: In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.


Question: What did anti-federalist support?

Answer: weaker central government

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. <hl> When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government . <hl> This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a <hl> weaker central government <hl>. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a <hl> weaker central government <hl> .

question: What did anti-federalist support?, context: In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.


Question: On the political spectrum, where does federalism stand?

Answer: federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. <hl> The distinction stems from the fact that " federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state . <hl> The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "<hl> federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state <hl>. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

The distinction stems from the fact that " <hl> federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state <hl> .

question: On the political spectrum, where does federalism stand?, context: In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.


Question: Who has a greater history of unitary states?

Answer: Europe

<hl> In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. <hl> The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

In contrast, <hl> Europe <hl> has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

question: Who has a greater history of unitary states?, context: In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).


Question: What does federalism mean in Europe?

Answer: weaker central government, relative to a unitary state

<hl> In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state . <hl> The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a <hl> weaker central government, relative to a unitary state <hl>. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a <hl> weaker central government, relative to a unitary state <hl> .

question: What does federalism mean in Europe?, context: In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).


Question: What branch does the United States want to limit under the federalist model?

Answer: judiciary

In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. <hl> Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism). <hl>

In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the <hl> judiciary <hl> (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

question: What branch does the United States want to limit under the federalist model?, context: In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the Federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).


Question: What happened on January 1st 1901?

Answer: nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation

<hl> On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation . <hl> The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

On the 1st of January 1901 the <hl> nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation <hl>. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

On the 1st of January 1901 the <hl> nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation <hl> .

question: What happened on January 1st 1901?, context: On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.


Question: When did the United Kingdom colonized the Australian continent?

Answer: 1788

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. <hl> The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788 , which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. <hl> In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in <hl> 1788 <hl>, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in <hl> 1788 <hl> , which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there.

question: When did the United Kingdom colonized the Australian continent?, context: On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.


Question: Which model is of federalism is similar to the federalism model in Australia?

Answer: United States of America

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. <hl> The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America , although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system. <hl>

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the <hl> United States of America <hl>, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the <hl> United States of America <hl> , although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

question: Which model is of federalism is similar to the federalism model in Australia?, context: On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.


Question: What was established when Australia was colonized?

Answer: six, eventually self-governing, colonies

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. <hl> The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. <hl> In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established <hl> six, eventually self-governing, colonies <hl> there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

question: What was established when Australia was colonized?, context: On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.


Question: When was Brazil's fall of the monarchy?

Answer: 1889

<hl> In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. <hl> Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in <hl> 1889 <hl> by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

question: When was Brazil's fall of the monarchy?, context: In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.


Question: Who caused the fall of the monarchy happened in Brazil?

Answer: military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by <hl> a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. <hl> The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a <hl> military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. <hl> Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

question: Who caused the fall of the monarchy happened in Brazil?, context: In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.


Question: When did Brazil adopt federalism?

Answer: 1891

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. <hl> Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891 , although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. <hl> The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since <hl> 1891 <hl>, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since <hl> 1891 <hl> , although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles.

question: When did Brazil adopt federalism?, context: In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.


Question: What other system does Brazil use?

Answer: Fonseca system

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. <hl> Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. <hl> Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the <hl> Fonseca system <hl> to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

question: What other system does Brazil use?, context: In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.


Question: What is the fonseca system?

Answer: regulate interstate trade

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. <hl> Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade . <hl> Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to <hl> regulate interstate trade <hl>. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to <hl> regulate interstate trade <hl> .

question: What is the fonseca system?, context: In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.


Question: What is the government of India based on?

Answer: tiered system

<hl> The government of India is based on a tiered system , in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. <hl> The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a <hl> tiered system <hl>, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a <hl> tiered system <hl> , in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers.

question: What is the government of India based on?, context: The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:


Question: What is a tiered system?

Answer: the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers

<hl> The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers . <hl> The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which <hl> the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers <hl>. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which <hl> the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers <hl> .

question: What is a tiered system?, context: The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:


Question: What was the constitution originally provided for?

Answer: two-tier system of government

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. <hl> The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government , the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. <hl> Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a <hl> two-tier system of government <hl>, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The Constitution originally provided for a <hl> two-tier system of government <hl> , the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments.

question: What was the constitution originally provided for?, context: The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:


Question: When the third tiere was added on, what is it in form of?

Answer: Panchayats and Municipalities

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. <hl> Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities . <hl> In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of <hl> Panchayats and Municipalities <hl>. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

Later, a third tier was added in the form of <hl> Panchayats and Municipalities <hl> .

question: When the third tiere was added on, what is it in form of?, context: The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:


Question: What is a distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism?

Answer: asymmetric

<hl> A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric . <hl> Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is <hl> asymmetric <hl>. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is <hl> asymmetric <hl> .

question: What is a distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism?, context: A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.


Question: What does Article 370 say?

Answer: special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. <hl> Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession . <hl> Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes <hl> special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession <hl>. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

Article 370 makes <hl> special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession <hl> .

question: What does Article 370 say?, context: A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.


Question: What does Article 371 say?

Answer: special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. <hl> Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. <hl> Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes <hl> special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim <hl> as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

question: What does Article 371 say?, context: A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.


Question: What happens with President's Rule?

Answer: the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. <hl> Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state. <hl>

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which <hl> the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months <hl> when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

question: What happens with President's Rule?, context: A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.


Question: Who is the strongest advocate of the European Federalism?

Answer: Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. <hl> The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). <hl> Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been <hl> Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg <hl> while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

question: Who is the strongest advocate of the European Federalism?, context: Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.


Question: Who opposed the European Federalism?

Answer: United Kingdom, Denmark and France

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. <hl> The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). <hl> Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the <hl> United Kingdom, Denmark and France <hl> (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

question: Who opposed the European Federalism?, context: Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.


Question: When did the French authorities adopted the pro-European Unification position?

Answer: Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). <hl> Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995 ), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours. <hl>

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). <hl> Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995 <hl>), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

<hl> Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995 <hl> ), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

question: When did the French authorities adopted the pro-European Unification position?, context: Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.


Question: When did the federal war end?

Answer: 1863

<hl> The Federal War ended in 1863 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. <hl> The United States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.

The Federal War ended in <hl> 1863 <hl> with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. The United States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.

question: When did the federal war end?, context: The Federal War ended in 1863 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. The United States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.