Recently, there has been an argument in the State of Texas about the power of the State and the local governments. This argument had raised up after Gregg Abbott warned about the “Californization” of Texas, and in follow passing laws that limited the power of local governments on issues like fracking in their cities. These arguments are similar to those that are for the powers for the State versus Federal government. Hence, there are lots of arguments for and against the local control, and on the other hand, it is hypocritical for the state government to impose its will on the policies.
In a conservative state like Texas, these kind of arguments seems unusual, but to maintain power the central government should put restrictions on the local governments. Thus, having these arguments between the central government and the local government is always possible. One of the arguments that proves that power should be on the hand of the local governments has been written by Matt Rinaldi, R-Irving State representative. He quotes from Ronald Reagan, “government is best which remains closest to the people” and explains that the local governments are the one that are close to the people (Rinaldi). He also compares these powers to the freedom of speech, and equal protection that state has the duty to protect and not to get it away from them. This side of argument believes that the people of a city can decide for their own more than anyone else, and none should put limits on their authority The other side of argument is that giving too much power to the locals can cause chaos, and they might even end up being powerless like the Confederate States. …show more content…
After this failure, the founding fathers gave less power to the people and they even made our Democracy indirect, so that no individual can vote or decide directly. Texas has the same problem, and the legislative are thinking about this issue the same way as the founding fathers looked at it. Giving too much power to the local governments can cost the state their economy. As an example on the November of 2014, Denton banned fracking, and this caused the other cities to follow the step of Denton City to ban the Fracking, but “Oil and gas production is the lifeblood of the Texas economy, yet action on the local level is threatening to undermine the industry.” (Neeley) He also clarifies that the 10th amendment only give powers to the states and not the local governments. This argument suggest that the local governments should never be a “layer of regulation on top of what the state already provides”, and they are “only valuable to the extent that it helps protect individual liberty and good government” (Neeley) One of the issues that had that these arguments was fracking. As mentioned in the last paragraph Denton voted to ban fracking inside the city limits because the fracking was polluting their water, and air. Thus, they used their power and banned the fracking, but this decision made the state and the Oil industries unhappy. Therefore, In May of 2015, the state passed a bill that in essence, prohibits bans on fracking (Maqbool) which shows the power that state has over the local governments. The state believed that fracking provides
In a conservative state like Texas, these kind of arguments seems unusual, but to maintain power the central government should put restrictions on the local governments. Thus, having these arguments between the central government and the local government is always possible. One of the arguments that proves that power should be on the hand of the local governments has been written by Matt Rinaldi, R-Irving State representative. He quotes from Ronald Reagan, “government is best which remains closest to the people” and explains that the local governments are the one that are close to the people (Rinaldi). He also compares these powers to the freedom of speech, and equal protection that state has the duty to protect and not to get it away from them. This side of argument believes that the people of a city can decide for their own more than anyone else, and none should put limits on their authority The other side of argument is that giving too much power to the locals can cause chaos, and they might even end up being powerless like the Confederate States. …show more content…
After this failure, the founding fathers gave less power to the people and they even made our Democracy indirect, so that no individual can vote or decide directly. Texas has the same problem, and the legislative are thinking about this issue the same way as the founding fathers looked at it. Giving too much power to the local governments can cost the state their economy. As an example on the November of 2014, Denton banned fracking, and this caused the other cities to follow the step of Denton City to ban the Fracking, but “Oil and gas production is the lifeblood of the Texas economy, yet action on the local level is threatening to undermine the industry.” (Neeley) He also clarifies that the 10th amendment only give powers to the states and not the local governments. This argument suggest that the local governments should never be a “layer of regulation on top of what the state already provides”, and they are “only valuable to the extent that it helps protect individual liberty and good government” (Neeley) One of the issues that had that these arguments was fracking. As mentioned in the last paragraph Denton voted to ban fracking inside the city limits because the fracking was polluting their water, and air. Thus, they used their power and banned the fracking, but this decision made the state and the Oil industries unhappy. Therefore, In May of 2015, the state passed a bill that in essence, prohibits bans on fracking (Maqbool) which shows the power that state has over the local governments. The state believed that fracking provides