romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
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.

Q1: What distinguishes Federalism from other multi-level governments?
A1: equality of standing between the two levels of government
Q2: What historical event illustrated that dividing sovereignty was not possible?
A2: Civil War
Q3: What organization is a leading example of a federal union?
A3: European Union
Q4: What form of Federalism is characterized by where sovereignty resides in the whole?
A4: federal state (or federation)
Q5: New research has clarified that Federalism has how many distinct forms?
A5: two distinct federal forms
Q6: Before new research, what was the definition of federalism?
A6: a division of sovereignty between two levels of government
Q7: After new research, what was the final definition of federalism?
A7: final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible.
Q8: When was federalism put into place?
A8: The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century
Q9: What is the difference between multi-level political forms and federalism?
A9: the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established
Q10: What is an example of a federal union?
A10: the European Union
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'.

Q1: What is the Latin word for federalism?
A1: foedus
Q2: What was federalism and confederalism common meaning in the 18th century?
A2: a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty.
Q3: What did James Madison referred to the new United States as?
A3: 'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both
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.

Q1: Where does the federalist model work best in?
A1: homogeneous states
Q2: What are homogeneous states?
A2: United States, Germany or Australia
Q3: Where can tensions be found in the federalist countries?
A3: Canada
Q4: What countries did the federalist model fail in?
A4: Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia
Q5: What countries dismissed the federalist model?
A5: Ukraine or Syria
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.

Q1: In the United States, what was federalism referred to?
A1: belief in a stronger central government.
Q2: When the U.S Constitution was being drafted, what did the federalist party support?
A2: stronger central government
Q3: What did anti-federalist support?
A3: weaker central government
Q4: On the political spectrum, where does federalism stand?
A4: federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state
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).

Q1: Who has a greater history of unitary states?
A1: Europe
Q2: What does federalism mean in Europe?
A2: weaker central government, relative to a unitary state
Q3: What branch does the United States want to limit under the federalist model?
A3: judiciary
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.

Q1: What happened on January 1st 1901?
A1: nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation
Q2: When did the United Kingdom colonized the Australian continent?
A2: 1788
Q3: Which model is of federalism is similar to the federalism model in Australia?
A3: United States of America
Q4: What was established when Australia was colonized?
A4: six, eventually self-governing, colonies
In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

Q1: When was Brazil's fall of the monarchy?
A1: 1889
Q2: Who caused the fall of the monarchy happened in Brazil?
A2: military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca.
Q3: When did Brazil adopt federalism?
A3: 1891
Q4: What other system does Brazil use?
A4: Fonseca system
Q5: What is the fonseca system?
A5: regulate interstate trade
The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

Q1: What is the government of India based on?
A1: tiered system
Q2: What is a tiered system?
A2: the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers
Q3: What was the constitution originally provided for?
A3: two-tier system of government
Q4: When the third tiere was added on, what is it in form of?
A4: Panchayats and Municipalities
A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

Q1: What is a distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism?
A1: asymmetric
Q2: What does Article 370 say?
A2: special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession
Q3: What does Article 371 say?
A3: special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim
Q4: What happens with President's Rule?
A4: the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months
Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member countries (all of whom would have had to agree to use of the term) never formally adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

Q1: Who is the strongest advocate of the European Federalism?
A1: Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg
Q2: Who opposed the European Federalism?
A2: United Kingdom, Denmark and France
Q3: When did the French authorities adopted the pro-European Unification position?
A3: Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-1995
The Federal War ended in 1863 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. The United States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.

Q1: When did the federal war end?
A1: 1863
Q2: How did the federal war end?
A2: with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces
Q3: What did the United States of Venezuela incorporate?
A3: "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
Q4: In this type of federation each country had its own what?
A4: President
On the other hand, Belgian federalism is federated with three components. An affirmative resolution concerning Brussels' place in the federal system passed in the parliaments of Wallonia and Brussels. These resolutions passed against the desires of Dutch-speaking parties, who are generally in favour of a federal system with two components (i.e. the Dutch and French Communities of Belgium). However, the Flemish representatives in the Parliament of the Brussels Capital-Region voted in favour of the Brussels resolution, with the exception of one party. The chairman of the Walloon Parliament stated on July 17, 2008 that, "Brussels would take an attitude". Brussels' parliament passed the resolution on July 18, 2008:

Q1: How many components does the Belgian federalism have?
A1: three components
Q2: What passed on July 18, 2007?
A2: Brussels' parliament
Q3: What are the Flemish representatives in favor for?
A3: Brussels resolution, with the exception of one party
Q4: What is Belgian Federalism?
A4: the federal system passed in the parliaments of Wallonia and Brussels.
However, in order to manage the tensions present in the Spanish transition to democracy, the drafters of the current Spanish constitution avoided giving labels such as 'federal' to the territorial arrangements. Besides, unlike in the federal system, the main taxes are taken centrally from Madrid (except for the Basque Country and Navarre, which were recognized in the Spanish democratic constitution as charter territories drawing from historical reasons) and then distributed to the Autonomous Communities.

Q1: Which cities are recognized in the Spanish Democratic Constitution?
A1: Basque Country and Navarre
Q2: How did they manage the tensions in the present of Spanish Transition to democracy?
A2: the drafters of the current Spanish constitution avoided giving labels such as 'federal' to the territorial arrangements.
Q3: Where are the main taxes taken?
A3: Madrid
Anarchists are against the State but are not against political organization or "governance"—so long as it is self-governance utilizing direct democracy. The mode of political organization preferred by anarchists, in general, is federalism or confederalism.[citation needed] However, the anarchist definition of federalism tends to differ from the definition of federalism assumed by pro-state political scientists. The following is a brief description of federalism from section I.5 of An Anarchist FAQ:

Q1: What are anarchists against?
A1: State
Q2: What are anarchists not against?
A2: not against political organization or "governance"—so long as it is self-governance utilizing direct democracy.
Q3: What mode of government does the anarchists prefer?
A3: federalism or confederalism
Alternatively, or in addition to this practice, the members of an upper house may be indirectly elected by the government or legislature of the component states, as occurred in the United States prior to 1913, or be actual members or delegates of the state governments, as, for example, is the case in the German Bundesrat and in the Council of the European Union. The lower house of a federal legislature is usually directly elected, with apportionment in proportion to population, although states may sometimes still be guaranteed a certain minimum number of seats.

Q1: Who can elect the members of the upper house?
A1: government or legislature
Q2: Can the members of the upper house be elected directly or indirectly?
A2: indirectly
Q3: Can the members of the lower house be elected directly or indirectly?
A3: directly
Federalism, and other forms of territorially autonomy, is generally seen as a useful way to structure political systems in order prevent violence among different groups with countries because it allows certain groups to legislate at the subnational level. Some scholars have suggested, however, that federalism can divide countries and result in state collapse because it creates proto-states. Still others have shown that federalism is only divisive when it lacks mechanisms tthat encourage political parties to compete across regional boundaries.

Q1: What is federalism seen as?
A1: a useful way to structure political systems in order prevent violence among different groups with countries
Q2: What does federalism allow?
A2: it allows certain groups to legislate at the subnational level
Q3: What do scholars think of federalism?
A3: Some scholars have suggested, however, that federalism can divide countries
The post-Imperial nature of Russian subdivision of government changed towards a generally autonomous model which began with the establishment of the USSR (of which Russia was governed as part). It was liberalized in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, with the reforms under Boris Yeltsin preserving much of the Soviet structure while applying increasingly liberal reforms to the governance of the constituent republics and subjects (while also coming into conflict with Chechen secessionist rebels during the Chechen War). Some of the reforms under Yeltsin were scaled back by Vladimir Putin.

Q1: What happened to Russia's subdivision of government?
A1: changed towards a generally autonomous model
Q2: When was Russia's subdivision liberalized?
A2: in the aftermath of the Soviet Union
Q3: Who was in charge when the reforms was going on?
A3: Boris Yeltsin
Q4: Who scaled back some reforms from Yeltsin?
A4: Vladimir Putin
Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government of the United States. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." (1)

Q1: What is federalism in the United States?
A1: ederalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government of the United States
Q2: How has the American government evolved?
A2: American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism.
Q3: What happened in Federalist No.46?
A3: James Madison asserted that the states and national government
Q4: What happened in Federalist No. 28
A4: "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit
Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal government. The federal government has certain express powers (also called enumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—the reserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states. The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.

Q1: Why did the constitution didn't have to explain federalism?
A1: Because the states were preexisting political entities
Q2: What is another word for express powers?
A2: enumerated powers
Q3: Where can we find express powers?
A3: in the Constitution
Q4: What does the Necessary and Proper Clause do?
A4: gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers
Q5: What are the expressed powers?
A5: the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
The Federalist Party of the United States was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans, including powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the Executive had too much power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a dictator (then believed to eventually be the president) from exploiting or tyrannizing citizens. The federalists, on the other hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.

Q1: What was the federalist party of the United States opposed to?
A1: Democratic-Republicans
Q2: What did the democratic-republican party believe in?
A2: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked
Q3: Who decided the rights in specific cases?
A3: the judicial system of courts