The Dynamic of Local, State and Federal Governance
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper explores the debate concerning the balance of governmental oversight and relative individual or community autonomy. The paper explains that one of the core philosophical divides in the founding of our nation concerns the issue over federal authority and state or local rights, with our Founding Fathers, modern elected public officials and the general population debating this point strenuously and in perpetuity. While there is a deeply ideological root to all of this, as a direct reflection of the compromise sought and discussed in this research discussion, the paper asserts that states and localities must be entitled to respond to their publics, even as they remain beholden to the philosophical girding given by federal authority.
From the Paper:"The whole of this discussion centers on the notion that the local governance is the unit most closely attached to the specific needs, demands and desires of the public who elected it. In a sense, therefore, the locality is the venue wherein individuals, groups and leaders may work closely together to effect meaningful policy and, where needed, change. However, for a great many years of our history, in fact leading well past the middle of the 20th century, the legislative position on the flexibility and freedom of this level of governance would be extremely limited. Prior to the establishment of official legislation denoting the existence of implied powers, it was understood only that the local government would be entitled to act on only those powers explicitly afforded it by the denotation of federal constitution, law or legislation. Naturally, this was a circumstance that would result in no small degree of conflict, resentment and impracticality. For the local government, the degree of its ability to respond to community needs and popular demand would be extremely limited by the condition of being beholden to federal policy and leadership. Naturally, the distance which this would create between local publics and the laws and policies governing or serving them would promote something of a disenfranchisement. The ultimate outcome of such a condition would therefore be the obstruction of individual rights, which would be clearly less represented in the body of the broader governing system. Its detachment and lack of proximity to the countless local publics over which it presided would render early a federal government with far too much authority with which to deprive individual and local rights."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Post, S.S. (2002). Understanding Interstate Compacts. American Political Science Association.
- Price, B. (2008). A (Very) Brief History of Dillon's Rule. Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
- Starn, M.L. (1983). Municipal Home Rule: Grassroots Democracy or a
- Symbolic Gesture. Maine Townsman.
- Zimmerman, J.F. (2007). Trends in State-Local Relations. State-Local Relations.
Cite this Analytical Essay:
The Dynamic of Local, State and Federal Governance (2010, June 20) Retrieved September 18, 2019, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-dynamic-of-local-state-and-federal-governance-127955/
"The Dynamic of Local, State and Federal Governance" 20 June 2010. Web. 18 September. 2019. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-dynamic-of-local-state-and-federal-governance-127955/>