Local Governments Interaction in Policy Formulation and Enforcement - Term Paper Example

 A Recommendation Report Introduction The policies of the United States of America comprises of all actions taken by its federal government. The executive branch is the primary entity through which policies are enacted. However, policies are derived from a collection of laws, executive decision and legal precedents. The most pressing public policy concerns, such as education quality, racial discrimination, poverty and environmental protection are better served to the public when decentralized to the local government rather than when controlled by the federal government. For instance, decentralization of police power to the states was a move primarily aimed at the general welfare of the individual states, the local government ensured safety, good morals and public health is achieved by the police by reserving some powers to the people. Thus, this paper tries to elaborate police power as a policy best left to the state giving an insight of the strength and weaknesses of this policy. It further describes the state and local government’s interaction in policy formulation and enforcement, how the federal government and state government share power in various ways, and the reason why a local government should be given powers by the state. In general, city councils and other governing bodies are directly elected by the people, the white house; states and local government. Police Power as a policy issue best left to the state The United States constitutional law recognizes police power as a responsibility to be controlled by the state. An individual state is therefore fully liable for the maintenance of law and order within its borders. Police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling other forms of coercion and inducement. Police power, particularly the use of physical means, resulted in controversies when it was it was controlled by the federal government, conflicting with the rights and freedoms of individuals (Rabin, 461). According to the tenth amendment to the United States constitution, the power prohibited from or not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; police power is certainly an example of such power. The federal government does not have a direct control of the police power, since the congress is bestowed with limited power in the constitution. Decentralization of the police powers definitely achieved its primary objective; improving the general welfare in terms of state safety, good moral and public health. However, the balance of police power hampers the enforcement law and order. Affecting the state’s ability to reform the welfare of its territories and complicating the states effort in fighting terrorism (Mendias, 75). The court, being a vital organ of the government is also affected by the police power Thus, state constitution differs in enforcement of police power. The federal court do not have the jurisdiction to interpret state constitution and consider all the states to be having a general police power and law; thus resulting in conflict between the federal government and the state government. Strength and Weaknesses of Police Power Policy The police power policy describes the fundamental of the government to make laws that would benefit its communities. The U.S. state governments have the mandate to make laws that coincide with the police power policy. The federal government’s power to make laws is restricted to a specific grant in the national constitution. There are a number of strength and weaknesses caused by the states exercise in creating police power and statute enactment (Tiedeman, 150). Strength of Police Power Left to the State The police power policy is entitled to states’ protection of property, lives, health, limps and comfort of individuals.it therefore falls under legislative action defining harmonious coexistence of individuals. The state is therefore responsible for the inaction of laws that promote peaceful coexistence of its citizens. Such laws are therefore not included in the federal government police power policy. Decentralized police power policy enhances effective combating of local crimes within state territories and eventually individual crimes, unlike the federal government’s laws on police power policy (Freund, 87). Weaknesses of Police Power Policy Left to the State The nation’s and federal governments laws that are supposed to apply to all citizens would be conflicted since constitutions differ from one state to the other. Moreover, an enlightened society; understanding their rights, enforcing state laws would be frustrating as courts will pass rulings favoring no party. Therefore, the national government will not be in full control of the legislations as some state laws may be contradicting each other or even the federal laws hence frustrating the national government legislative control over its territories. Without referring to any policy in particular, decentralization of policies bring about the feeling that a state can exist independently, this in turn impacts negatively on state-to-state coexistence. Division among states dismantles a country since people from various states are not likely to coexist outside their individual states therefore destroying national unity. Some people may tend to be loyal to their states and not the country at large, thus one is likely to see another state as a different country and they have nothing in common (Tiedeman, 150). Universities in the U.S. reside in regions that have different political, cultural and economic conditions. The role of state governance in public universities is an extremely vital factor. In the past twenty years, the state governments have given a considerable attention to state governance matters which resulted to many universities operating in a more regulated setting. The analysis suggest that, for most of this measures, resources and productivity are relatively high at the university with a state wide board that is more decentralized with members that are not primarily appointed by the governor. State governance, if not properly run under clearly stipulated set of laws created by the federal government may result in racial discrimination and division in a country as people of a particular race maybe residing in a particular state, thus limits intermingling. Recommendation In this section, certain observations and facts have to be taken into keen consideration. Large scale public works project requires federal and state governments to cooperate and compromise, especially when deciding who pay for what. Thus, construction of interstate highway system was a crowning achievement. Sometimes, this strained partnership. It is therefore important to note that the federal government cannot efficiently run the nation without incorporating the involved state governments and on the other hand, a state government cannot exist independently; it must coordinate with other state governments (Rabin, 423). Policies are easily formulated and enforced if left to state government. The federal government is a broad body, governing a number of states therefore its policy formulation process is a complex and diver’s activity that take a lot of time since a lot of consultations and decision making, involves a huge number of people. This management of resources is a technically complex process, that if not properly monitored can result in unequal distribution of resources across the nation. Such scenarios result in underdevelopment in some states and others will be flourishing and enjoying the extensive financial support since the policy of equity was not properly adhered to. Moreover, the U.S. is constituted of 50 states each having its own constitution but all the provisional state constitutions must comply with the United States constitution. For instance, a state’s constitution cannot deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury as assured by the U.S. constitution’s 6th amendment. Therefore the national government is still in control of every state despite the fact that they have individual governing bodies. This therefore has enabled the national government to harmoniously control its territories. Decentralization of police power policy, leaving it to state government has really enhanced the security system in individual states. Enation of laws by state governments, that are in line with the police power policy, has created a potential platform for the states to fight against common local crimes within its territories as it can easily narrow down to individual crimes, unlike the federal government where contact with the people at the grass route level is shaky thus identifying criminals among the public population is compromised. In order to realize the full potential of the police power, it could be prudent to make it a function of the state. This could see radical changes in states’ ability to regulate, control and prevent criminal activities in their territories. This is achieved through the abolition of civil rights jurisprudence on police power. Relationships between states and federal parties often shape environmental laws and the practical impact of these laws. Moreover, environmental issues often do not have well distinct boundaries and thus jurisdictional overlap complicate those matters. Those complications bring into question how environmental laws are established, how such laws should be imposed and if the state or federal government should have the final word in specific environmental debate. State governance involves people at the grass route level hence making enforcement of environmental policies easy and efficient (Rabin, 387). As illustrated by this paper, some policies, for example the police power policy discussed in the first two tasks, is advantageous if left to the state government. However, it is important to note that this ultimate advantages is monstrous for states whose laws are inline the national common laws or rather the federal government laws since the court will find it easy to exercise their required freedom in enhancing this laws. On the other hand, as a state with laws which are conflicting with the national common laws is disadvantaged, since the court finds it challenging to execute full legislative power in enacting those laws. I therefore recommend that rising policies should be left to state government since the services will be administered to public on time. However, the national government should however keep to a close watch on all the individual state governments to ensure that they work on board. This therefore will improve service delivery to the public, improving the living standard of its citizens. Conclusion In conclusion, pressing policies that involves national security and welfare require effective and immediate measures since they hold the welfare of the public at stake. Under such circumstances, such policies should be left to the state government because they are in direct contact with the people who are at the grass root level. Centralizing governance (federal government) is highly exposed to the risk of certain states suffering the consequences of lack of equity in allocation of state resources. These risks are minimal where state governance is involved. Since all the state governments are modeled after the federal government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. United States of America dictates that all states should uphold a “republican form” of governance. This, therefore, plays a significant role in national unity and keeping all state governments under the federal government, thus the balance of police power among the state government and the people hampers the enforcement of laws and order, affecting the state’s ability to reform the welfare of its territories. Complicating the state’s efforts in fighting terrorism would not hold water since this cooperation is targeted at eliminating crimes at the local state level (Murphy & Lutze, 67). The two parties involved in this union have a common goal and this therefore makes the states a safe place to be. This kind of policy enforcement, involving the public, either directly or indirectly is effective since the citizens feel the sense of belonging and they also know that they have a role to play in ensuring their own security and welfare. Works Cited Tiedeman, Christopher G. Treatise on the Limitations of the Police Power in the United States, at 4-5, Thorpe v. Rutland R.R. 1886, 149-150. Print. Freund, Ernst. The Police Power. Public Policy and Constitutional Rights 6. Arno Press. 1976. Print. Mendias, Claudia. Engagement of Policing Ideals and Their Relationship to the Exercise of Discretionary Powers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2006. 70-92. Print Murphy, David, & Lutze, Faith. Police-probation Partnerships: Professional Identity and the Sharing of Coercive Power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2009. 65-76. Print. Rabin. State and Local Government Administration. CRC Press. 1985. Print. Read More