For most of US history, federalism consisted of a dual system, often referred to as layer-cake federalism. The responsibilities of the federal government were clearly defined and generally limited to national duties such as defense, border maintenance, and international trade. In the 1930s, federalism shifted to a more cooperative system, often called marble cake federalism because the lines of responsibility between the federal government and the states became unclear. Considering the benefits and drawbacks of the current system, should the federal government and the states continue in the same partnership, or move back to a dual system? Use at least two clear and specific arguments to support your perspective. Include at least one counterargument and a rebuttal.

The current system should stay as it is, this system allows for more beneficial cooperation and separation of powers between the states and national government. The current system also allows for less confusion when concerning the delegation of certain powers between the state and the national government, the dual systems finite way of defining where the national government's powers end and where the states' begin. With the current government it's not a fight to figure out where powers begin and end, it is easier to delegate powers because everything is cooperative and not just one singular layer on a cake on top of another layer.

The current system makes the country stronger in relation to the relationship between the state and national government because this current government we have needs the cooperation between the two. With the dual system everything was more separated by a line, which meant that the national government and the state government had little opportunity to truly cooperate in any way that was significant to a strong relationship between the two, except when the concern of delegating powers came into play.

One could argue that the dual system granted for a more clear distribution of powers, it was not as mixed because there was a clear severance between the powers which was more organized. While, yes, that is true, it was always an issue to figure out how to delegate those organized powers, which authority would go to who besides the obvious. With the current system everything is much simpler because it's less of a cleanly organized system and more of an organized mess. This permits a more fluid approach to the situation of the delegation of specific powers and authorities.

in mcculloch v. maryland (1819) the supreme court ruled that congress had implied powers under the necessary and proper clause of article i, section 8 of the constitution to create the second bank of the united states and that the state of maryland lacked the power to tax the bank.

gibbons v. ogden, (1824), was a landmark decision in which the supreme court of the united states held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to congress by the commerce clause of the united states constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.

what are the choices?