States' Rights vs US Gov =/= Cities' rights vs State Gov

[crash_davis 23,084]

Conservatives:

- Big government is bad

- States should be able to govern themselves

- Local government is bad

- States must govern local government 

Is this how it works?

 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190422/texas-mayors-warn-of-legislative-assault

Quote

Decrying proposals that would restrict the ability of cities to prevent some trees from being felled on private property, regulate payday lenders and strip clubs, oversee short-term home rentals, or raise revenue through property taxes, a group of Texas mayors, including Austin’s Steve Adler, released a list on Monday of what they consider the most harmful bills.

The Legislature is “more focused on attacking cities than any session I can remember,” Adler said at a news conference. “Certainly we have a history of being at odds with the Legislature. ... This assault is being waged against all cities, not just one or two.”

Bennett Sandlin, executive director of the Texas Municipal League, which put together the list, said: “We’re opposing more than 150 bad ideas for Texas cities at this point.”

The jousting by city officials and lawmakers at the Capitol is the latest round in a saga that has grown in intensity over the last few years. In 2015, shortly before being sworn in as governor, Greg Abbott called for doing away with local bans on plastic bags, fracking and tree-cutting that he says amount to a “patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations that is eroding the Texas model.”

Subsequently, a court struck down the plastic bag rules and the Legislature effectively prohibited a ban by the city of Denton on fracking and passed a watered-down version of the anti-tree-cutting rules.

“Cities don’t want local control; they want total control,” James Quintero, director of the Think Local Liberty Project at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, told the American-Statesman. “That is not consistent with conservative values.”

‘Most harmful’ bills

The Texas Municipal League list of “most harmful city-related bills,” all of which have been approved by a House or Senate committee, includes:

• House Bill 969, which would allow landowners to remove “noxious” or “invasive” plants. The Texas Municipal League says it’s a “backdoor” that would “jeopardize tree preservation ordinances.”

 

• HB 3899 would, in nearly all cases, prohibit cities from imposing a restriction on businesses that operate in more than one Texas city.

• HB 2847 would prohibit cities from enforcing any ordinance regulating the activities of any person or business that holds a license issued by the state.

• HB 3778 would restrict the authority of municipalities to regulate short-term rental units and would cap the allowable fee for registration of these units at the lesser of the amount needed to cover administrative costs or $450.

• Senate Bill 2 and HB 2 would constrain how much taxing authorities can collect in revenue, one of the top issues Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Abbott and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, R-Lake Jackson, pledged to address this legislative session. SB 2 has passed the Senate; the House is slated to take up its version on Wednesday.

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, says his HB 969, “would not allow someone to clear cut.”

“The state of Texas is currently paying millions of dollars a year to remove invasive trees,” he continued. “A homeowner should not be prevented from doing so at no cost to the state.”

 

And he faulted the Texas Municipal League for its interpretation of his HB 3899, which he said “has nothing to do with strip clubs, massage parlors, or billboards.”

 

“Cities already have the right to regulate sexual oriented businesses,” he continued. “Cities have never had the right to regulate billboards — the state currently has that power. In regard to payday lenders, consumers should not have to worry as they drive across city lines that businesses are operated differently. If there are consumer issues that need to be dealt with, they should be dealt with for all Texans, not just a few.”

Modest tax savings

Adler called the proposals “untethered to sound public policy.”

Rehearsing a theme of the legislative session, the mayors said the marquee legislation aimed at restricting property tax collection would harm their budgets.

Adler said the property tax legislation would cut $35 million to $50 million from the amount the city collects in revenue.

He said the average Austin homeowner would see savings on the city portion of the tax bill of $1.80 to $2.70 per month — but that new public safety programs would be compromised.

The savings would “not even get a cup of coffee at Starbucks,” said Mary Dennis, mayor of the San Antonio suburb of Live Oak.

 

Sandlin said his counterparts in other states are facing similar bills, “identical down to the comma.”

He said the legislation was promoted by national business think tanks.

“They’re pushing this idea that it’s too much trouble to go city by city, fighting regulations or even negotiating bills,” he said. “Why not go to the statehouse and cut cities off at the knees?”

He said he calls it the “Goldilocks form of government.”

“The feds are big and bad. Cities are small and bad. Somehow state government gets it just right,” is how he described the Goldilocks theory.

Quintero, whose colleagues have testified on some of the bills on what he called “TML’s hit list,” said the list highlights “bills that empower the individual over the collective, that elevate self-government over city government.”

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by crash_davis

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,411]

I believe the Constitution doesn't recognize city authority especially as greater than state authority.

[Asithappens 974]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I believe the Constitution doesn't recognize city authority especially as greater than state authority.

You seem to miss the overall point.

Almost intentionally so.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

The states' rights argument for conservatives has always been about discrimination, not about principle.  It is known.

[Asithappens 974]

11 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

The states' rights argument for conservatives has always been about discrimination, not about principle.  It is known.

So say we all.

[freyguy 4,245]

I'm good with this.  It's a bit ridiculous that within a state, some things would be illegal in one city, but not another.  Sometimes cities need to be reminded who owns the land.

[F250 28,681]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

You seem to miss the overall point.

Almost intentionally so.

I assume the point is that conservatives traditionally promoted the idea that local government governs best because the feedback from citizens to government is more precise. If someone doesn't agree with local government they can then vote with their feet by moving to a area that is more representative of the individuals views. However this idea is abandoned everytime conservatives hold a position that is higher centralized office.

 

 

[crash_davis 23,084]

1 hour ago, freyguy said:

I'm good with this.  It's a bit ridiculous that within a state, some things would be illegal in one city, but not another.  Sometimes cities need to be reminded who owns the land.

Agreed.  Ridiculous that within the US, some things would be illegal in one state, but not another.  Sometimes states need to be reminded who owns the land.

[freyguy 4,245]

My man

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

This all started in Texas when the state stepped in and squashed the city of South Padre Island from banning plastic bags. Which makes no sense except as a dick move, because SPI was motivated less by hippy-dippy green environmentalism than they were pure capitalism, in that plastic bags fuck up their beaches, and beaches are their lifeblood. 

[Brisketexan 104,590]

Yeah.  Heaven forbid Rio Grande City should have ANY local concerns that are different in any way from, say, Dalhart, or Texarkana.  They're all the same.

Heaven forbid that Van Horn should have different water conservation requirements in its building code than Angleton does.  

Local communities, with the constitutionally-granted authority to pass ordinances that reflect local concerns and desires, are a feature of a functioning system.

Of course, from a policy standpoint, nevermind the fact that these EVIL local communities, who MUST be reigned in...and they're talking about places like Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio...have become the economic engine of the state.  Houston and Austin (for example) are not killing business with their regulatory climate; their economies are booming.

If you wanted to create a recipe for killing small towns, on the other hand, the slate of bills that's up would be a solid way to do it.  The GOP is so hell-bent on attacking everyone they perceive as an enemy -- even to the extent of creating "enemies" where none exist -- that they're going to eat their own.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Why are certain backward-ass counties allowed to stay dry when state law allows for alcohol? Shouldn't we demand uniformity from the Baptists to our secular nation's laws?

[wildcat09 29,234]

The Fugitive Slave Act was a pretty big hint that even the original "states rights" folk were full of shit.

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Why are certain backward-ass counties allowed to stay dry when state law allows for alcohol? Shouldn't we demand uniformity from the Baptists to our secular nation's laws?

Lol. Baptists.

Methodist who can't read.

Wait....

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,968]

Is it really beyond so many people's intellectual capacity to understand that there has to be a lower limit on local control to be effective? When people say they think local control is more effective, they are speaking in relativistic terms. Because taken to its extreme, as some critics are wont to do, results in anarchy. Either these critics are dumber than a jar of week old mayonnaise or they are being intentionally dishonest. Most conservatives feel that the state is the appropriate level for many regulations, but of course some feel like counties should have more leeway than others.

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

There is a principled thing called federalism that governs the relationship between the states and the federal government.  Part of the principle is that the state government is "closer to the people," and more democratic, but that's not the entirety of it.

The notion of federalism doesn't apply as between states and its lesser constituents, counties and cities.  Unless it is provided for in the state constitution.

Federalism =/= states rights.

Edited April 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[BrazilHorn 6,576]

Here’s what I will say. For the ungodly amount of property tax I pay I should be able to cut down any tree I want on my property  

 

 

[Asithappens 974]

8 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Is it really beyond so many people's intellectual capacity to understand that there has to be a lower limit on local control to be effective? When people say they think local control is more effective, they are speaking in relativistic terms. Because taken to its extreme, as some critics are wont to do, results in anarchy. Either these critics are dumber than a jar of week old mayonnaise or they are being intentionally dishonest. Most conservatives feel that the state is the appropriate level for many regulations, but of course some feel like counties should have more leeway than others.

Imo, it's not an issue of intellectual deficiency.

It's dipshit politicians who don't like the outcome or political gain realized  (by the other side) from enacting  the local control measures.

And, as my broken record mantra continues, it's the dumb shit voters who keep voting those politicians into office. That's the real problem.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,968]

Fair enough.

[Pam Cummings 9,576]

My question is why the hell should some group of people who don't live in my city have any voice in my city government?

[American Swindle 102]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:12 PM, Longhornfan1024 said:

The states' rights argument for conservatives has always been about discrimination, not about principle.  It is known.

This is quite NPC of you.  How about the time the northern states used State nullification  in response to the federal government's fugitive slave act of 1850 where they said Fuck you, we aren't returning slaves to the states they fled? 
 

Yeah, I know, it doesn't serve your narrative.  

Edited April 25, 2019 by American Swindle

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

This is quite NPC of you.  How about the time the northern states used State nullification to in response to the federal governments fugitive slave act 1850 where they said Fuck you, we aren't returning slaves to the states they fled? 
 

Yeah, I know, it doesn't serve your narrative.  

The northern states were liberal, not conservative.

 

[seven 1,366]

Why is anyone banning the banning of plastic bags? Get a fucking life. 

[American Swindle 102]

Just now, Asithappens said:

The northern states were liberal, not conservative.

 

My argument isn't rooted in left vs  right, but stems from a belief that the 10th amendment is crucial to our republic (State's Rights).  It's an example of how state's rights was key in nullifying federal laws they deemed wrong.  

[EMAWesome 101]

Paraphrasing the 10th Amendment the best I can off the top of my head,  All powers not expressly reserved for the federal government nor expressly denied to state government are reserved for state government.  Nothing in that referencing city, county, or other forms of local government.  It might be in the constitutions of particular states but I don't think city or local governments are even mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  In summary, as much as possible you and the people closest to your back yard worry about your back yards and I and the people closest to my back yard will worry about my back yard.  Not going to be possible in every circumstance but it should be the general rule in as many circumstances as common sense allows.

[Asithappens 974]

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

My argument isn't rooted in left vs  right, but stems from a belief that the 10th amendment is crucial to our republic (State's Rights).  It's an example of how state's rights was key in nullifying federal laws they deemed wrong.  

Maybe I read it wrong. Longhorn specifically qualified his states rights comment toward conservatives. 

You seemed to attempt to refudiate his statement by invoking examples of northern, liberal states.

My bad if I misread that.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

3 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Maybe I read it wrong. Longhorn specifically qualified his states rights comment toward conservatives. 

You seemed to attempt to refudiate his statement by invoking examples of northern, liberal states.

My bad if I misread that.

You presume that Swindle either (1) has a functioning brain or (2) acts in good faith.  Both would be incorrect.  

[American Swindle 102]

You presume that Swindle either (1) has a functioning brain or (2) acts in good faith.  Both would be incorrect.  

Says the guy that paints all conservatives on the board as discriminatory bigots.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Says the guy that paints all conservatives on the board as discriminatory bigots.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You just proved my point.  

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Says the guy that paints all conservatives on the board as discriminatory bigots.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't get that vibe. 

Maybe you two need to have a beer summit.

But, a whole lot of conservatives are little more than mouth-breathing, MAGA-hat wearing idiots. And, to put a finer point on it, they aren't even conservatives. Imo, there's no way a "real" (yeah, no true scotsman and all that) conservative can support Trump and the current GOP. 

But the Dems have their own problems with progressive idiots (not all progressives are idiots). Screw the whiny social justice morons.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Asithappens

[GSU&UT 1,798]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a principled thing called federalism that governs the relationship between the states and the federal government.  Part of the principle is that the state government is "closer to the people," and more democratic, but that's not the entirety of it.

The notion of federalism doesn't apply as between states and its lesser constituents, counties and cities.  Unless it is provided for in the state constitution.

Federalism =/= states rights.

How do you always miss the bigger picture in all these threads where you constantly want to argue about historical precedence? The point is that conservatives in this country are all about local control, that's very frequently their argument of how we should be governed, that is until that local control goes against the grain of their party platform that's held at a bigger level. Hardly everyone using the states rights/limited government BS argument is speaking from a deep understanding of what federalism is.

Don't be disingenuous and tell me that you think these same people wouldn't cheer a conservative town passing a law that goes against a liberal's state's majority party's likely platform.

Edited April 25, 2019 by GSU&UT

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

I don't get that vibe. 

Maybe you two need to have a beer summit.

But, a whole lot of conservatives are little more than mouth-breathing, MAGA-hat wearing idiots. And, to put a finer point on it, they aren't even conservatives. Imo, there's no way a "real" (yeah, no true scotsman and all that) conservative can support Trump and the current GOP. 

But the Dems have their own problems with progressive idiots (not all progressives are idiots). Screw the whiny social justice morons.

Forgive me on this one, I just got that vibe he was attacking all states rights advocates who are conservatives are only supportive of the 10th amendment for discriminatory reasons.  Furthermore, I've seen CONSTANT bashing from the left mob that state's rights are inherently racist so my bad in conflating this mob mentality with the post LonghornFan posted below:

 

Quote

The states' rights argument for conservatives has always been about discrimination, not about principle.  It is known.

I, for one, am a big proponent of State's Rights.  I'm also a fan of smaller government.  Some of the issues raised in the OP's excerpt seem to be a struggle between city ordinances infringing on basic property rights of businesses.  For example, in Austin, trying to enforce paid sick leave for small businesses.  This undermines property rights and I believe section 19 if the Texas Constitution 

Quote

Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

So if a city ordinance undermines property rights, i think the state has a constitutional right to override such ordinances.  The question is does this apply to the below?

 

Quote

• House Bill 969, which would allow landowners to remove “noxious” or “invasive” plants. The Texas Municipal League says it’s a “backdoor” that would “jeopardize tree preservation ordinances.”

 

• HB 3899 would, in nearly all cases, prohibit cities from imposing a restriction on businesses that operate in more than one Texas city.

• HB 2847 would prohibit cities from enforcing any ordinance regulating the activities of any person or business that holds a license issued by the state.

• HB 3778 would restrict the authority of municipalities to regulate short-term rental units and would cap the allowable fee for registration of these units at the lesser of the amount needed to cover administrative costs or $450

I'd say so.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,968]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

The northern states were liberal, not conservative.

 

Because they preferred to use expendable child labor instead of slave labor? Or because they turned around after the Civil War and implemented a policy of genocide against the native americans (not that the southern states would have done differently)? Or was it because they had to be persuaded that slaves were only 3/5 of a person? Neither side was particularly liberal.

[Asithappens 974]

Furthermore, I've seen CONSTANT bashing from the left mob that state's rights are inherently racist so my bad in conflating this mob mentality with the post LonghornFan posted below:

 

Well, imo there's a pretty good reason why one would make the argument that states' rights are inherently racist.

The Voting rights act? Civil liberties act? Richard Russell? The Civil War?

I think there is a very strong presumption that yes, the whole states' rights claims are inherently racist. That doesn't mean they are all that way, but inherently? 

I'd say hell yeah.

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

How do you always miss the bigger picture in all these threads where you constantly want to argue about historical precedence? The point is that conservatives in this country are all about local control, that's very frequently their argument of how we should be governed, that is until that local control goes against the grain of their party platform that's held at a bigger level. Hardly everyone using the states rights/limited government BS argument is speaking from a deep understanding of what federalism is.

Don't be disingenuous and tell me that you think these same people wouldn't cheer a conservative town passing a law that goes against a liberal's state's majority party's likely platform.

Guess you missed the last sentence of my post. Some actual conservatives are fans of federalism.  I agree that most "states rights" people, or "local control" people, woudn't know federalism from a hole in the ground.  And a lot of those people have lost any claim to the real label "conservative."  As Pete says, they just want to go backward in time, rather than constrain rampant progressivism with prudent doctrine, like federalism.

Edited April 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104,590]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Guess you missed the last sentence of my post. Some actual conservatives are fans of federalism.  I agree that most "states rights" people, or "local control" people, woudn't know federalism from a hole in the ground.  And a lot of those people have lost any claim to the real label "conservative."  As Pete says, they just want to go backward in time, rather than constrain rampant progressivism with prudent doctrine, like federalism.

On a legal basis, you are correct -- the origin/foundation of state power vs. the Federal government is very different than the origin/foundation of the power of home-rule cities and the like vs. state government.

On a philosophical and policy basis, however, your distinction is largely irrelevant.  Conservatives have crowed about the need for "local control" for decades (and yes, the "states' rights" yelling in the south is part of that).  Their policy argument has been that 1) local communities know what's best for them, and 2) big daddy from the outside shouldn't tell local folks what to do.  And they believe STRONGLY in those principles.....except when they don't.

A consistent principle would be to take the position that there should be basic and core protections that apply to all gov't entities (e.g., they can't take property without just compensation, can't deprive you of live, liberty or property without due process, etc.).  Such protections have been used in the past to limit the actions of states, and smaller local gov't entities.

The path the GOP is on right now is good old fashioned statist paternalism.  How dare local governments enact any policies that the ruling party disagrees with!  That must be stopped, and stopped right now.  Paternalism.  Pure and simple.

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

On a legal basis, you are correct -- the origin/foundation of state power vs. the Federal government is very different than the origin/foundation of the power of home-rule cities and the like vs. state government.

On a philosophical and policy basis, however, your distinction is largely irrelevant.  Conservatives have crowed about the need for "local control" for decades (and yes, the "states' rights" yelling in the south is part of that).  Their policy argument has been that 1) local communities know what's best for them, and 2) big daddy from the outside shouldn't tell local folks what to do.  And they believe STRONGLY in those principles.....except when they don't.

A consistent principle would be to take the position that there should be basic and core protections that apply to all gov't entities (e.g., they can't take property without just compensation, can't deprive you of live, liberty or property without due process, etc.).  Such protections have been used in the past to limit the actions of states, and smaller local gov't entities.

The path the GOP is on right now is good old fashioned statist paternalism.  How dare local governments enact any policies that the ruling party disagrees with!  That must be stopped, and stopped right now.  Paternalism.  Pure and simple.

I acknowledge(d) basically all of your points.  "States rights" is horseshit, situationally applicable nonsense. 

It is distinct from federalism, which should require the inquiry before any federal legislation:  is this really a federal issue (or is it really just expedient to do it this way)?  You could transmogrify a similar inquiry into state legislation, I suppose.

"Local control" is not a completely worthless concept.  It is, after all, more democratic than the alternative.  But it needs to yield sometimes to a bigger picture.

Edited April 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SubliminalHorn 6,674]

Still annoyed that Austin isn’t allowed to ban plastic bags anymore. Now I see them blowing all over the place and stuck in trees again. So glad conservatives are fighting for true liberty, the right to use plastic bags. True patriots. 

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Still annoyed that Austin isn’t allowed to ban plastic bags anymore. Now I see them blowing all over the place and stuck in trees again. So glad conservatives are fighting for true liberty, the right to use plastic bags. True patriots. 

Local control fascist!

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

I guess the final note on this.  Within a state, the choice between local, county, or state rule on an issue is pretty much arbitrary or "prudential."

Within the union, however, the Constitution expresses a pretty firm bias in favor of the states.  And while the Constitution as originally intended may not be the final word, I don't think you can treat it as such a "living document" that it becomes a nose of wax, either.  Similarly, while life is sufficiently complicated now that more federal control is somewhat necessary, that doesn't mean that federalism is an outmoded concept.  State governments still do an awful lot of governing, and they do it pretty well, really.  And if you don't like the way your state governs, it's easier to change that than the federal government, and, you can leave if it's really that bad.

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Still annoyed that Austin isn’t allowed to ban plastic bags anymore. Now I see them blowing all over the place and stuck in trees again. So glad conservatives are fighting for true liberty, the right to use plastic bags. True patriots. 

I've also seen re-usable bags flying everywhere.  I always feel like legislation to curb human habits never works and requires force.  Take the straw ban for instance, I went a bought a metal straw because I was compelled by persuasion by what I read about straws being in the ocean etc.  I think it's a good idea and has merit so no force needed by the local authorities, I'm sucking this bitch everyday. 

 

[SubliminalHorn 6,674]

You’ve never seen an actual reusable bag flying around. Those HEB plastic bags they passed as reusable bags for poors don’t count. 

[hayden_horn 11,360]

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Still annoyed that Austin isn’t allowed to ban plastic bags anymore. Now I see them blowing all over the place and stuck in trees again. So glad conservatives are fighting for true liberty, the right to use plastic bags. True patriots. 

what compelling interest is there in the state regulating bag bans? i loved the bag ban. now shit is everywhere again.

at least with rideshare, there's a compelling public interest regarding safety. what the fucking interest in bag bans? oh, it's just gotcha politics. got it.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

what compelling interest is there in the state regulating bag bans? i loved the bag ban. now shit is everywhere again.

at least with rideshare, there's a compelling public interest regarding safety. what the fucking interest in bag bans? oh, it's just gotcha politics. got it.

there was literally some plastics manufacturing lobbying group that got their ass chapped over it and God knows the lege can't resist a good blowjob from industry

[RDCanecutter 26,250]

All y'all gonna be wrapped up in this States vs Cities thing, that's what they WANT you to be thinking about.

Then the Convention of the Counties upends everything, and y'all never saw it coming.

[gmr548 16,503]

I don't think anyone would argue that the state doesn't have the legal authority to pre -empt a city. No different than the feds being to do it to a state. It is just laughably hypocritical, but unfortunately not surprising. That's pretty much a litmus test for the GOP these days.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk