Federal Vs. State Policy Comparison

Federal vs. State Policy Comparison

The battle between the federal and state policy has been an ongoing battle for centuries. The federal government has continued to try to force laws upon the states rather than allowing the states to create their own laws and policies for their state. Originally, the federal government was created to oversee the creation of state policies and assist the states with guidance and help as needed, but as such recent issues such as immigration and marijuana legalization have come up, the federal government has overstepped their boundaries and created a conflict of interest when it comes to criminal policies. Donald Rumsfeld said it best when he stated, “the Federal Government should be the last resort, not the first. Ask if a potential program is truly a federal responsibility or whether it can better be handled privately, by voluntary organizations, or by local or state governments.”

Since a majority of criminal cases are handled at various state levels with the exception of individuals who have committed federal offenses, it is important that local and state governments develop the laws and policies that affect the people living within those parts. Stephen Breyer said, “you will read in the newspaper more often about federal courts, but the law that affects people, the trials that affect human beings are by and large in the state courts.” The local and state governments have the constitutional ability to create the laws that they see fit, it is primarily the responsibility of the federal government to provide the funding for the states to enforce the laws that they create.

For almost half a century the federal courts have sought to ensure that state criminal defendants are convicted and sentenced in accordance with the Constitution. State compliance with federal procedural standards is tested through a repetitive combination of certiorari petitions to the United States