Posted on 04/21/2015 5:05:57 AM PDT by thackney
It is just the opposite issue. It would be the case of the state protecting the rights of the individual from a local ruling of the city.
Would you support a small town council setting an interstate speed limit of 10 mph since the city limits encompasses a 100 yards of I-10? After the locals voted for it and agreed to the fines assessed of course.
“I side with the cities on this one. Just as the states should have the rights guaranteed them in the constitution, cities should also have the right to govern themselves to a degree. If the people of a city (Denton, in this case) vote against frac’ing, then so be it.”
This is about property rights. If I have mineral rights within a city limits and am excluded by a local ordinance from enjoying these, I should be fairly compensated by whoever is restricting them.
BTW, I believe you are making this up about ‘rights’ for cities in this state to manage their own affairs. What goes for the US Constitution does not go for Texas’ cities. The rights of Texas in the US Constitution are EVERYTHING not expressly mentioned that are the domain of the feds. Cities have no say in any of that. As far as what the Texas Constitution says about things, the state is even reserved the authority to permit all bingo games(see Art 3 Sec 47(b) in http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/TxConst.pdf)
No because that is clearly a Federal roadway. I would support a town from voting to not allow a Federal or State highway cut through their town.
This is the same a zoning laws. If I want to build some small cottages on my property to rent out and this is against local zoning laws, should the city pay me in compensation for the rent I would be losing? Same thing for laws not allowing a home based business, front yard gardens ... hundreds of examples.
This is the same argument the Federal government makes to make all kinds of laws ... that they are protecting you from your local community.
And would you support a town voting in a 99% inheritance tax for estates valued over $5 million? After all, the majority of the town’s population voted for it and Farmer Brown turned 85 this year. The local council figured taking his estate will reduce property taxes for the rest of the population for at least 10 years.
Protecting individual property rights is important.
Yes I would support that in principle (that they had a right to make that law, not that I agree with it) as long as it is not retroactive and gave people the choice to moe out in a reasonable amount of time.
A city should in theory be able to make any stupid law they want. So should a State. For example raise taxes. Then people leave that city (or State) and move to an area with lower taxes.
I agree that protecting property rights is important. But the authority to breech them should be held at the lowest governmental level possible. Then people have more say over the laws being drafted and enacted in the first place.
So, for example, I’d rather have a city breeching my property rights than the State or the Federal government. This is because I have more local say at the city level than at the State and Federal level ... not because I want the city breeching my property rights.
This is already an issue with local zoning and land use laws and has been for some time. You have a better chance at preventing more restrictive zoning laws being passed (or getting them repealed) at the local level than you would at the State or Federal level.
This is the theory of Subsidiarity.
That seems contrary to our Bill of Rights. I support restricting the reach of government at all levels. They should not have absolute control over the individual at the local level.
Just as our state has set limits for Homeowners Associations, municipality abuse of power needs to be reined in as well.
Look at it this way. I don’t want anyone to control my property. But if there is control I want it to be at the lowest possible governmental level. That way I have more power to change or eliminate that control than I do at higher governmental levels.
The way municipalities are “reigned in” in through the voting process ... in which case your vote has far more power than at the State or Federal level. You also have more of a chance to swat your local neighbors and fellow townspeople to your point of view than you do at higher levels.
If you are always appealing to a higher government level to protect you from your local busybodies, then you are conceding a great deal of power to the higher governmental powers. This is short term thinking in my view and more likely to be against your interests in the long run.
You can apply this to anything. What if your city decides not to allow convicted sex offenders to live within your city limits ... but then the sex offenders appeal to State and Federal non-discrimination laws and the State or Feds comes in and overrules your city?
There are thousands of examples of this kind of thing. People really need to look at the principle behind what they want on a single issue.
Let’s take an example. Currently there is a topic here on FR about making pubic toilets unisex. If you were opposed to that which would you prefer:
That the law be Federal making all public toilets unisex ?
That the law be local (city) making all public toilets unisex?
If I am opposed to unisex public toilets I’d much rather this be a local law than a Federal law. That way I have much more sway in the law not being passed in the first place, or having it repealed if it is passed.
You can apply the same principle to many situations. Already people do not realize how much Federal law is incorporated into their local laws (for example building energy codes). This is not a good road to go down no matter which way you fall on a particular law.
oops
swat should be sway
I prefer what is happening in Texas. The State is trying protecting the individual from the abuse of city power.
TEXAS ‘BATHROOM BILL’ CRIMINALIZES ENTERING FACILITY OF OPPOSITE SEX
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/22/texas-bathroom-bill-criminalizes-entering-facility-of-opposite-sex/
“But the authority to breech them should be held at the lowest governmental level possible. “
You are not advocating the protections afforded under the US Constitution or the Texas Constitution, but are demanding a new set of rules for the way our country works.
Seems sorta Communism in reverse, instead of a central authority, you appear to wish as few a group as possible make decisions. I suggest this is getting close to anarchy.
The way our govt now works the state has the biggest say so of any of the various govt levels.
Again, this is looking to the larger entity of government to do something for you. In a specific case, it might be to your favor, but as an underlying principle it is not. It is how we get the federal taking over in cases where it should be up to states ... and ultimately a one-world government taking over where it should be a decision by individual nations.
This is going in the wrong direction. What you want instead is government by the smallest unit possible even if it is a nuisance in some particular cases. You have a better chance of getting it changed.
We don’t agree. I like more limits on government. It takes action through government bodies to put those limits in place.
We don’t agree. I like more limits on government. It takes action through government bodies to put those limits in place.
“It is how we get the federal taking over in cases where it should be up to states “
I disagree. We have the feds taking over responsibilities because the US Constitution is not being followed.
... yes, because people want their issue solved to their satisfaction by the highest level of government, not understanding what they are giving up (and forcing others to give up) in the process. It is the policy of expediency.
Respectfully disagree. How can giving higher levels of government more power put limits on government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.