Political subdivisions of police governmental powers per federalism - Essay Example

?Political subdivisions of police governmental powers per federalism or College: of the 28th June, Federalism is said to be the ‘central tenet of the government’ created by the US Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky (2006) notes the federalist structure acts as a major influencing power in assigning various powers to individuals through the constitution. It is divided into the state government and central government in general making it a powerful system driving the nation. It subsequently follows that the Constitution gives equal power to the central government and the state government as well as the political subdivisions. Several countries like the United States, Canada and Australis follow this system of governance. In effect there are two separate sovereignties both having their own powers and as remarked in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). While the federal government is very powerful, it can never be all-powerful because the states have continued to have their own judicial system which covers and controls every department which is not linked to the central government and operates within the state’s territory. In this essay I shall start by defining the term federalism and political subdivisions. Then I shall move on to explain the police governmental powers per federalism and explain the historical context of Constitutional clauses establishing such powers. In doing this I intend to aid my essay with examples of the case law before concluding it. Federalism refers to a government system where each province concerned is administered by two government levels. As a general rule the commanding central government takes care of the issues which affect the nation in general while the problems related to state territories are controlled by their respective governments. The federal governance system prevalent in the US is also based on the same concept. There is a central government and various subdivisions of state governments. The constant power struggle between the state and the central government lead to various legal conflicts affecting the smooth administration of key departments operating under both the government divisions. The British government's oppression and tyrannical political and economic road map for American colonies led to the American Revolution. It caused the Americans to greatly distrust the centralized governmental powers. As a result only very little authority was bestowed upon the central government when the Constitution was initially formed in 1781. The Articles of Confederation created during this period assured unlimited power to each state government to the extent of each state having their own court system. This form of government became too complex to control and a ‘Great Compromise’ was established in 1787 to implement uniform administration throughout the US. This compromise was reached to make the governance process easier, ensure fast economic growth and maintain a standard judicial system throughout the country. Most of the policies drawn in the ‘Great Compromise’ were based on the federalist ideologies. This was condemned by several opponents who called federalism a ‘folly’ and accused the pact of reducing the state government’s power and failing to clarify its actual role in the governance of the country. They also added the Supremacy Clause weakened the power of the state governments. Changes made in the constitutional provisions ensured only the states having a close relationship to the government will be granted the prerequisites for their growth projects. It is a commonly accepted fact that practical conciliation was the only reason to encourage constitutional federalism, then. People speaking in defense of the ‘Great Compromise’ argue that state governments have the power to vote and elect the central government. Hence, their rights are guarded and they are the ones controlling the central government, not vice versa. Political subdivisions on the other hand indicate the states present in the federalism. It is also referred to as ‘local democracy’ by Feeley and Rubin (2008) and can be a city, county, prefecture, province or a state as for the purpose of this essay. The legal status of political subdivisions is governmental. However, all states are required to obey certain judiciary pacts mentioned as the ‘supreme law’ mentioned under Article VI reinforced by the central government. The Bill of Rights 1791, clearly states if there is a conflict regarding the power not assigned to the central government or the states by the constitution, the states are free to make their own rules regarding them. Federalism grants each state certain powers like establishing their own police power and taxation rules. But, they cannot wage war with each other or print money for their own as such powers regarding the national wellbeing are restricted to the central government. The issue or police power which lies within the power of the state government is a matter of high judicial conflict as the court gives out rulings in favor of the state government in most of the scenarios. The definition of Police Powers by James Hodge (1997) stated the powers which remain with the state government are abundant while the ones with the federal government are very limited and defined. Every state government is responsible for managing its own internal affairs, the prosperity of their territory, property issues, growth plans and objectives as well as culture and liberty related issues. Police powers of each state give them the autonomy to allow political subdivisions to take measures which do not affect the well being of their community. The use of police powers by states is not a rare scenario. Whenever the U.S. Supreme Court has considered such cases involving police power of state versus the central government, it has applied the doctrine of ‘balance of interests,’ to conclude if the state can intervene using its police powers in the concerned issue or not. The court clarified in many cases the state is free to enact laws which protects the well being of its inmates or a particular community. The law might be applicable in areas of health care, safety concerns and general citizen welfare. Even if some or other federal law conflicts with the basic power of the state to extend its police power, the court rulings are in favor of the state rather than the central government. An interesting example of one such case is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). In this case, the Supreme Court defended the state government’s authority to implement vaccination laws to ensure the safe health of all its citizens. The court stated it is necessary to put behind the personal notions of certain people when it comes to enacting the police power of a particular state for the common welfare of thousands of people. The case involved an immigrant from Sweden who lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1902. The state government decided to vaccinate all of its citizens against smallpox outbreak. The Massachusetts Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Association backed him up to approach the court against this compulsory vaccination, claiming the vaccine caused various side effects to his family members. It left him and his young son seriously ill. The family was better off without the use of the vaccine. The person claimed he cannot be forced to fall ill, voluntarily in the name of law. The court refused to accept his argument and charged him a $5 fee. Massachusetts was one of the few states which had taken a productive precautionary measure to control the disease. The court stated, the US constitution gives complete liberty to every citizen. But, personal preferences should be put back while enforcing collective safety and the state government can force any person residing within its territory to comply with such laws using its police power. Similarly in the Bibb v. Navajo (1959) case, an Illinois law which asked for the installation of a particular type of mudguards on all the trucks using its highways during interstate travels triggered severe opposition in the 1950’s regarding the police power of the states. The court ruling was in favor of the state in this particular case also as the state had enacted such a law only to ensure the safety of its citizens. On the issue of exceeding the powers by the political subdivisions the case of Mahony (1994) is a fine example to be considered for analysis. This case was filed by the Pennsylvania State government against a person who tried to establish a gas well in the residential area. The state prevented him from doing so as it is too dangerous to establish a private gas well amidst local community. Jack D. Mahony the owner of the well argued several government gas wells operated within the resident limits of the district with the state department's permission. He blamed the state government of exercising its police power in a wrong way and discriminating a private company. In a rare instance, the court ruled against the state’s concerns regarding the safety of the public and the concern about public welfare in general. It condemned the state government for exerting their police power in an unnecessary way preventing the landowner from establishing his basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. The court advised the issue can be resolved by drafting a bond with the township regarding the formation of the private gas well, which will clearly state the compensation measures in terms of a disaster. It also ensures it is the state government's responsibility to make sure all the safety measures are followed in the private gas well similar to government established ones. This instance proved the court will not give complete authority to the state government and they too are subjected to certain limitations even though the scope of police power is quite wide and sophisticated. If the basic constitutional rights guaranteed by the US law are broken by the state enforced laws without proper reason, the state is also liable to take back its laws. Such a restriction is used to ensure the police power is used fairly by the various state governments. A similar situation arose before a few months when certain southern states wanted to retain their judicial power in deciding whether certain minority groups can vote in the election. They demanded photo ID cards and complex residential proofs not owned by most of the minority citizens and the ex-felons. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was ruled down by the US Supreme Court preventing certain state governments from exercising their rights in selecting who can actually vote. The court rendered the Section 5 practically unusable in its recent ruling, preventing the states from misusing their authority (Bickerstaff, 2013). A major exception arose to the rule that cities, counties and other such political subdivisions are constitutionally indiscernible from the state which created them. This principle was stated in Worcester v. Worcester (1904) case. The court ruling made it clear the departments operating under the state government are not bound only to the state, but they are a part of the larger central government. The central government and the judicial system have the right to revoke certain authorities given to the state government just as it was endowed to them. In short the judicial system will only consider collective benefits as the major objective when it comes to private sector versus state or state versus central government conflicts. In conclusion it goes without saying that the importance of federalism can be appreciated by understanding the historic view of the concept especially when it relates to political subdivisions, police and governmental powers. Federalism was basically structured to prevent interventions of federal and state powers. One can agree with Cross (2002) that the federal system cannot be eliminated easily even if a more efficient unitary system arises and grows to be the dominant ideology. State police powers on the other hand were historically taken as the major source of legal authority for the government’s work in the interests of the public welfare. In the current scenario the scope of political subdivisions of police governmental powers has widened considerably. However, the two distinct systems of federalism and political subdivisions have been working alongside and yet independent of each other and there is no reason to doubt that they will continue to do so under and within the distinct powers which both of these two systems enjoy. References 1. Bickerstaff, S. (2013, 25 June). Austin Impact of Supreme Court Decision. Retrieved June 30, 2013 from the Burntorangereport website: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13721/bickerstaff-austin-impact-of-supreme-court-decision-ruling-on-section-5-of-voting-rights-act 2. Cross, FB. (2002, November ). The Folly of Federalism. Retrieved June 30, 2013 from the LexisNexis website: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=24+Cardozo+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=1371a79c2385cd6e0cea0c24d750ae38 3. Chemerinsky, E. (2006). Constitutional law: principles and policies. Aspen Publishers 4. Feeley, M & Rubin, EL. (2008). Federalism: Political identity and tragic compromise. The University of Michigan Press. 5. Hodge, J. (1997). The role of new federalism and public health law . Georgetown University Law Center. Read More