Question: Which league does the Cork County Cricket Club belong to?

Answer: Leinster Senior League

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. <hl> Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League . <hl> The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973. All three involved Ireland playing Scotland. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the <hl> Leinster Senior League <hl>. The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973. All three involved Ireland playing Scotland. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the <hl> Leinster Senior League <hl> .


Question: Which first-class matches were hosted at Mardyke?

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League. The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973. All three involved Ireland playing Scotland. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

Answer: 1947, 1961 and 1973

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League. <hl> The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973 . <hl> All three involved Ireland playing Scotland. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League. The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in <hl> 1947, 1961 and 1973 <hl>. All three involved Ireland playing Scotland. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in <hl> 1947, 1961 and 1973 <hl> .


Question: Which teams played in the three first class matches?

Answer: Ireland playing Scotland

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League. The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973. <hl> All three involved Ireland playing Scotland . <hl> The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

The most notable cricket club in Cork is Cork County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1874. Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in the Leinster Senior League. The club plays at the Mardyke, a ground which has hosted three first-class matches in 1947, 1961 and 1973. All three involved <hl> Ireland playing Scotland <hl>. The Cork Cricket Academy operates within the city, with the stated aim of introducing the sport to schools in the city and county. Cork's other main cricket club, Harlequins Cricket Club, play close to Cork Airport.

All three involved <hl> Ireland playing Scotland <hl> .


Question: Which Australian Rules Football team is Cork home to?

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

Answer: Leeside Lions

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. <hl> Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions , who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). <hl> There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the <hl> Leeside Lions <hl>, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the <hl> Leeside Lions <hl> , who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007).


Question: How many times have the Leeside Lions won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership?

Answer: four

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. <hl> Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). <hl> There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership <hl> four <hl> times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]


Question: When did the Leeside Lions win the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership?

Answer: 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. <hl> Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007 ). <hl> There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in <hl> 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007 <hl>). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in <hl> 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007 <hl> ).


Question: Which inline roller sports translate well to winter in Cork?

Answer: hockey and figure skating

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). <hl> There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating , <hl> which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as <hl> hockey and figure skating <hl>, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

There are also inline roller sports, such as <hl> hockey and figure skating <hl> ,


Question: What Martial Arts can be found within Cork?

Answer: Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. <hl> There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo ) within the city. <hl> Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

The city is also the home of road bowling, which is played in the north-side and south-west suburbs. There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including <hl> Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo <hl>) within the city. Cork Racing, a motorsport team based in Cork, has raced in the Irish Formula Ford Championship since 2005. Cork also hosts one of Ireland's most successful Australian Rules Football teams, the Leeside Lions, who have won the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland Premiership four times (in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007). There are also inline roller sports, such as hockey and figure skating, which transfer to the ice over the winter season.[citation needed]

There are also boxing and martial arts clubs (including <hl> Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Karate, Muay Thai and Taekwondo <hl> ) within the city.


Question: What is federalism?

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Answer: mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound <hl> mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments <hl> (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.


Question: What features are distinctive of federalism?

Answer: a relationship of parity between the two levels of government

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is <hl> a relationship of parity between the two levels of government <hl> established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.


Question: What is federlism defined as?

Answer: a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status . <hl>

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as <hl> a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status <hl>.

It can thus be defined as <hl> a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status <hl> .


Question: What document exemplified modern federalist government?

Answer: Constitution of 1789

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789 , is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the <hl> Constitution of 1789 <hl>, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the <hl> Constitution of 1789 <hl> , is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.


Question: What distinguishes Federalism from other types of government?

Answer: a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established . <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is <hl> a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established <hl>. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is <hl> a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established <hl> .


Question: Is the division of power among different levels of government equal in a Federalist government?

Answer: there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status. <hl>

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which <hl> there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status. <hl>


Question: Federalism combines what two types of government?

Answer: general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a <hl> general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments <hl> (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.


Question: What is federalism?

Answer: Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government , combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government <hl>, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government <hl> , combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system.


Question: In Federalism, are the division of powers equal?

Answer: division of powers between two levels of government of equal status

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status . <hl>

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a <hl> division of powers between two levels of government of equal status <hl>.

It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a <hl> division of powers between two levels of government of equal status <hl> .


Question: What type of governments are included in federalism?

Answer: general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments

<hl> Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a <hl> general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments <hl> (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.


Question: How many governments are apart of federalism?

Answer: relationship of parity between the two levels of government

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. <hl> Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. <hl> It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1789, is a <hl> relationship of parity between the two levels of government <hl> established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.


Question: What distinguishes Federalism from other multi-level governments?

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.

Answer: equality of standing between the two levels of government

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 the characteristic of <hl> equality of standing between the two levels of government <hl> 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 historical event illustrated that dividing sovereignty was not possible?

Answer: Civil War

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Civil War <hl> 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 organization is a leading example of a federal union?

Answer: 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 the <hl> European Union <hl>.

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


Question: What form of Federalism is characterized by where sovereignty resides in the whole?

Answer: federal state (or federation)

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. <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. <hl> 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 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 <hl> federal state (or federation) <hl> 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: New research has clarified that Federalism has how many distinct forms?

Answer: two distinct federal forms

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. <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. <hl> 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 the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying <hl> two distinct federal forms <hl>, 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.

This clarified definition opens the way to identifying <hl> two distinct federal forms <hl> , 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.


Question: Before new research, what was the definition of federalism?

Answer: a division of sovereignty between two levels of government

<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 '. <hl> 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.

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) '<hl> a division of sovereignty between two levels of government <hl>'. 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.

Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) ' <hl> a division of sovereignty between two levels of government <hl> '.


Question: After new research, what was the final definition of federalism?

Answer: final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible.

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'. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. <hl> 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: When was federalism put into place?

Answer: The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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. <hl> The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century <hl>, 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.

<hl> The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century <hl> , over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this.


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 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 the Latin word for 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 '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'.

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 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 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: Where does the federalist model work best in?

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.

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

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: Who has a greater history of unitary states?

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).

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: 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 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 happened on January 1st 1901?

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.

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: 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.