A federal system divides power between the states and the federal government. This division of power is intended to ensure a balance is met between the needs of society on a larger scale and the interests of citizens at a local level. Take a position on the success of the framers' federalist design and whether that balance has achieved those goals, or whether an alternative system should have been considered.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

My position on the success of the framers' federalist design is that it has really served the interests of the United States political system.

My opinion is that balance has achieved those goals in that the federalist system -the division of powers between the national levels and the states- was intended to ensure a balance is met between the needs of society on a larger scale and the interests of citizens at a local level.    

The framers believed in the principle of Federalism that is the system of government where power is divided between a central government and regional governments. The framers of the U.S. Constitution granted some faculties to the national government and granted others to the states.

The framers respected the states because they were already functioning one way or the other the people of that time were font to their states.

In other words, when we talk about United States politics, the principle of federalism refers to that the power of the government is shared by the state governments and the federal government.

This power functions under a system of checks and balances in which none of the branches of the government was more powerful than the other two. In the US government system, when federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law will win. This is included in the Constitution as the Supremacy Clause.

they produces sugar..

hope this , question was a little open ended