This post is simply a short term paper I wrote for a political science class comparing two views, one for and the other against local-control, i.e. subsidiarity in Catholic terms. The main sources are an article from a Texas politician and the other from an organization in favor of maintaining sovereignty at the city level. Both sources are not bad reads and pertinent to any Texan concerned for politics. This is not overtly Catholic in content, but I do get a little philosophical truth in towards the end; it is what it is.
Local Control in Texas
Local-government is a proven model for cities who fear outside control and unnecessary change from the big guys in the capitol with their lack of insight and understanding of its local needs. However, what happens when the local sovereignty abuses its power, is influenced by special interest groups, and infringes upon liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Rep. Matt Rinaldi would argue that civil liberties trump the authority of local control, which is in contrast to Local Control Texas’ argument that local-control is itself a right given by the Home Rule Amendment of 1912 and is a Texas tradition. The arguments presented are apparent contradictions because both tout to be licit. Which argument takes precedence or can they be reconciled?
ABSOLUTE LOCAL CONTROL
Local Control Texas’ (LCT) main argument is that federal control is in contrast to local tradition and more specifically the Home Rule Amendment which grants cities of over 5000 citizens to pass their own charters and laws. (Local Control Texas) This would seem to be a closed case since this right is granted to the cities by law. Although both parties agree that local control is best for communities, LCT could have done a better job in strengthening their point. They have proven that local control is licit, but they failed to stress the benefits of local-control in their main write up. LCT provides many examples of how the state government has infringed upon their sovereignty and values in the legislation section, but it takes some sifting, cutting, and pasting from other sections of their website to bolster their argument. Some of the more weighty arguments that were unearthed were: The state would “have to pass hundreds of laws dealing with local quality of life issues.” and “Local governments have the insight to preserve trees, natural areas and wildlife” that hold special value to the residence that otherwise could be demolished for advertising. (Local Control Texas) It goes without saying that local residents know more about their history and heritage, which serves them in the transmission of their traditions to later generations.
LIBERTY TRUMPS LOCAL CONTROL
On the other hand, Governor Abbot claims that we are being “Californianized” (increased bans on liberties), by local governments infringing upon individual rights. (Rinaldi) What’s more, Rinaldi’s defends local-government by quoting President Ronald Raegan saying, “government is best which remains closest to the people." He continues to praise local-government by adding, “Local governments are far superior to state governments in their ability to communicate with, aggregate feedback from and respond to issues raised by local constituents in areas like public education, zoning, fire codes and traffic regulations. State micromanagement of these areas is unnecessary and more likely to be out of line with local needs.” (Rinaldi) I believe LCT would have been better served by adding credible quotations similar to Raegan’s to its arsenal.
Despite Rinaldi’s praise of local government, he does find areas in which local-government is lacking, especially when local government overreaches its bounds. Some of those boundaries include: “warrantless searches, restricting political speech, and seizure of private property without just compensation.” (Rinaldi) He even makes reference to the fact that any law that is enacted statewide impinges upon local control; while Rinaldi respects the control of local governments on some issues, he maintains that it is subordinate to a higher authority. The higher authorities stated by Rinaldi are: the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 1st amendment while citing Gitlow v. New York, which voided state and local laws abridging freedom of speech. (Rinaldi) Lastly, Rinaldi claims that supporters of local government, are inconsistent or rather hypocritical on some issues, especially ones to which they are inclined.
CONCLUSION
In hindsight, Rinaldi’s arguments are more cogently presented than TLCs, yet granting place on some issues to the antagonists. By granting their authority on those issues, it results in a partial loss of power at the local level, and serves as a middle position —avoiding unpalatable extremes. He recognizes the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over state constitutions, further validating the hierarchy of the Federal Government over state government. I propose specifying areas in which state governments cannot infringe upon local governments in order to maintain proper checks and balances on both sides.
A current example between local and state government includes the use of hydraulic fracking; a method of extracting natural gas which poses an inconvenience to residents by potential contamination of water, noise pollution, and backflows possibly resulting in earthquakes. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens 396) Local city councils were able to prohibit fracking by using zoning and planning ordinances to restrict its use to areas far removed from residents. However, opposition from state lawmakers who are in favor of fracking, reflect different interest for those who wish to benefit monetarily from their mineral rights. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens 397) Consequently, some state lawmakers advocate for the few individuals who benefit from fracking, despite the zoning and planning ordinances cities have been using to undermine state law.
Rinaldis stance on personal-liberties superseding local-control is an idea which is very popular today among the masses. More often now than ever do we see personal liberties being granted by the courts over local-laws which were placed there for the common good despite their infringement on the personal liberties of a few. What higher authority have these courts appealed to; their interpretation of the Constitution, the common good, natural-law, divine-law, or liberty in and of itself? I think this line of thinking is dangerous, because it presupposes that laws preventing personal-liberties are erroneous simply because they don’t align with modern thinking. Objectivity should always be the goal when determining the pragmatic end to which the law was promulgated; if that good end is no longer applicable, there should be progress; if not, it should be defended as such. TLC believes just as Rinaldi does, that local-control is the optimal method of governance of communities; however, there are more questions to be answered, such as, “Under what grounds can the state check local authorities and by what means will this be executed?” Does it merit a complete revocation of power?
Works Cited
Collier, Ken, Steven E. Galatas and Julie D. Harrelson-Stephens. Lone Star Politics. Los Angeles: Sage, 2015. Book.
Local Control Texas. What is "Local Control?". 2015. Web. 7 September 2015. <http://www.localcontroltexas.org/#!about/cjg9>.
Rinaldi, Matt. Liberty trumps local control. Trib. Austin: The Texas Tribune, 12 March 2015. web. 7 September 2015. <http://www.tribtalk.org/2015/03/15/in-defense-of-straight-ticket-voting/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment