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

Following are the solution to the given question:

Explanation:

Please find the complete question in the attached file.

It should remain the existing system and make it easier for the States as well as the federal govt to function in a much more beneficial but growing rapidly. This existing system also makes it a little less confusing to determine a dual structure of the realistic way to define where the federal gov't finishes where the states start when it came to delegating certain rights between both the state and the federal govt. It does not make it easier with the current team to manage out where forces begin or end, since all is collaborative not just one single layer on even a cake over another layer.

Its current system enhances the nation about the relationship between government and state and we need collaboration between these two governments. The dual system for all was divided by a line that implies that the national administration and the individual states had few chances, except where the question of representation was involved, to cooperate genuinely in some way which was significant in a close relationship between the two countries.

One might claim that a dual system for clear power-sharing wasn't quite as mixed because there was a simple, structured division among forces. That right, but, it's always been a problem to decide how and when to assign the coordinated forces with whom other than the obvious one will go. It becomes much simpler with the new system, so it is rather an intelligently organized system but more an ordered chaos. This helps the transfer of such forces or authorities to proceed more easily.

increasing defense spending.

explanation:

george calvert wanted maryland to be a colony where could live safely. because georgia's founders wanted a colony of small farms rather than large plantations, they originally banned under british law in the 1700s, people who owed money could be