Local governments should be allowed to govern free of federal interference.
Describe a specific situation in which local governments should not be allowed to govern free of federal interference. Discuss what you think determines whether or not local governments should be allowed to govern free of federal interference.
___
In the late 18th century, the founding fathers of the United States established a federalist form of government--that is, a division of power between a central government and states/ local entities. The10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in particular, specifies that all powers not expressly granted to the central government would be in the control of States. The Constitution lays out various powers under the purview of the central government, including, among others, the power to levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce. There is also an implied power which allows the central government to pass laws necessary to execute express powers. Some of the more controversial state rights, include decisions regarding the death penalty, gay marriage, assisted suicide and medicinal marijuana use. It is important for states to have certain rights free from federal interference; however, the central government helps states maintain a more equal footing with each other in regards to safety, education and environmental standards.
Federal government should be able to interfere with states in certain contexts. Maintaining high safety standards is one example where federal government can help protect citizens. In the 80s, the federal government funding for federal highways was contingent on whether states enforced a 21 yr old legal age for drinking. Without "coercing" states via its power to control the "purse", states would be less likely to comply with federal safety standards. The federal government also mandates educational standards in each states. While opponents of this type of interference maintain that local governments have a better understanding of their students and can best tailor curriculum according to unique needs, the federal standards are essential in attempting to create equality among the state educational systems. Without federal government interference, there is more of the danger that certain states will fall behind as far as graduation rates and be underprepared for higher education curriculum.
Those advocating the merits of non-interference with local and state government maintain that a smaller ruling body that is closer to the people is best equip to address unique needs. Certain controversial areas, including gay marriage and the death penalty, should probably be left for states to decide since people tend to have a common political/belief platform depending on their location. For example, coastal states tend to be liberal and will support gay marriage and reject death penalty; whereas southern states incline towards a conservative point of view. Granted, the danger with leaving states to decide controversial issues is that certain commonly-held prejudice beliefs will be reflected in the law and hurt minorities. In this case, the federal government could act as a check on legislation based on hate and fear.
Another argument for non-interference with local/state government is that the federal government is so far removed from states and cannot effectively oversee the 50 states. Furthermore, people do not want to deal with an even more bureaucratic federal government and its red tape. States have less people that they are accountable for and can process papers and move faster (ideally) than the federal government. When the federal government interferes, the State will need to follow more formalities/protocol in addressing problems--thereby, resulting in a longer, drawn out process.
Indeed, there exists many arguments for the interference and non-interference of federal government in state/local affairs. While state governments may have a better understanding of the needs and interests of its citizens, the federal government remains essential in making sure that states do not fall behind higher standards of education, safety and health.
No comments:
Post a Comment