Asymmetric federalism in the United States

walmart

Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more of the substates has considerably more autonomy than the other substates, although they have the same constitutional status. This is in contrast to symmetric federalism, where no distinction is made between constituent states. As a result, it is frequently proposed as a solution to the dissatisfactions that arise when one or two constituent units feel significantly different needs from the others, as the result of an ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference.
Click to expand...
Anyway you could have a Asymmetrical federation in the United States.

What would be the impact of this.

Asymmetric federalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 

Pesterfield

A few potential ideas:
The original 13 get special treatment for being founders.
Texas and Hawaii get special recognition for being independent nations maybe Utah/Deseret if the Mormons have to be enticed to join.
After the Civil War the former Confederate states aren't suicided, but do have to come back with a lower status.
The Insular cases go differently and Puerto Rico and the other territories come in as lower tier states as a compromise.
 

jycee

herkles said:
This is OTL no? considering the status of Puerto Rico and DC and the other territories.
Click to expand...
BrockSampson said:
And native reservations.
Click to expand...
Agree. I'd say this is somewhat de-jure in OTL as the territories and native lands do have certain autonomy while being treated differently than states.

I'd also argue that in the current political make-up certain small states have some level of de-facto political preference (off set by the economic disparity between them and the larger states).
 

General Tirpitz

The Tai-Pan said:
The more obvious fault line is the Original 13 versus new states. There were some mutterings in OTL that new states should not get perfectly equal political rights but that died pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a very serious political crisis in making further down the line, if that kind of arrangement is implemented. Which could make it an interesting timeline though.
 

Fabius Maximus

Maybe groups like the Five Civilised Tribes could be admitted as states, but with more autonomy (and less representation in Congress?) to reflect their different heritage.
 

kham_coc

Banned
I could see Puerto rico and similar areas electing congressmen (Also, DC?) but not senators.
Texas could also insist on some particular rights (F.E, a constitutional right to secede) as a condition of joining.
 

The Tai-Pan

General Tirpitz said:
That sounds like a very serious political crisis in making further down the line, if that kind of arrangement is implemented. Which could make it an interesting timeline though.
Click to expand...
One reason it was never seriously considered was that most of the Founding Fathers assumed it would be centuries before the West was settled enough to make an impact.
 

Deleted member 109224

Isn't this sort of the case OTL with the Commonwealths, Indian Reservations, and Territories?

Congress is allowed to admit its own members and SCOTUS could plausibly just call it a 'political question' and punt if Congress started admitting House Members from non-states. Imagine if some western states (Red and Blue) started pushing to have Amerindians as nonvoting house members serving on committees and proceeding to pack Congress...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

The Tai-Pan said:
One reason it was never seriously considered was that most of the Founding Fathers assumed it would be centuries before the West was settled enough to make an impact.
Click to expand...
That one shocks me with how Ben Franklin correctly foresaw a doubled population every 25 years, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top