State's rights...why not city/county rights?

[Nomad4Ever]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

 

[Ishm]

Even very conservative states often still have liberal run cities. No way those conservative state leaderships are going to give up their power to control the liberals.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

One difference is that states fund many county/city public services.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

One difference is that states fund many county/city public services.

A lot of state budgets are as much as half federal money depending on the state. So I don't see that as much of a difference.

 

[tshade]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

city rights are under the state and fed, constitutions

 

[ttwtt78640]

A lot of state budgets are as much as half federal money depending on the state. So I don't see that as much of a difference.

OK, but do such federal bribes to the states (with the strings attached to them) increase or reduce state government power?

 

[WorldWatcher]

States don't have rights.

WW

 

[Nomad4Ever]

OK, but do such federal bribes to the states (with the strings attached to them) increase or reduce state government power?

Reduce, mostly. But I'm not sure of what relevance that is.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

city rights are under the state and fed, constitutions

That's a non-answer. I'm talking about ethics. Not law.

Conservatives argue for states rights on both legal/constitutional AND ethical grounds. I laid out some of the ethical arguments in my OP.

 

[ttwtt78640]

States don't have rights.

WW

Governments (at all levels) have powers which they treat as rights to exercise those powers.

 

[Mycroft]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

In some states...Colorado, for one...cities and counties do have significant powers that are separated from the state's powers. In Colorado, it's called "Home Rule".

In 1902, Colorado voters authorized home rule governance for cities and towns (municipalities) by amending the state constitution. Home rule governance for counties was authorized by voters through a separate amendment to the constitution, in 1970. This issue brief outlines home rule governance for municipalities and counties, including the process for adopting a home rule charter and the powers that a home rule charter provides to local governments.​

​

What is Home Rule?​

​

Home rule is a form or structure of governing defined by the citizens of a municipality or county that allows for more control over matters of local significance. Voters can decide to adopt home rule, and through a charter, detail the structure and powers of the local government.​

​

Home rule empowers local governments to act and legislate on local matters. In general, home rule ordinances addressing local matters supersede state law. However, in matters of statewide or mixed concern, state laws may take precedence over conflicting home rule ordinances. Without a home rule charter, local governments are strictly subject to the laws of the state​

​

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/r20-540_issue_brief_on_home_rule_charters.pdf

 

[ttwtt78640]

Reduce, mostly. But I'm not sure of what relevance that is.

See post #10.

 

[DrewPaul]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

States have certain rights but they are still beholden to the constitution of the US. We clearly have a hybrid government. What rights do you think cities should have that they don't now?

 

[mrjurrs]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

Because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. States are.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

States have certain rights but they are still beholden to the constitution of the US. We clearly have a hybrid government. What rights do you think cities should have that they don't now?

Because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. States are.

I very very specifically said that I am talking about the positive ethical arguments that are made for why state ought to have rights/some autonomy. Conservatives will argue that them being a independent as they are is a good think and a better form of government.

I'm am NOT talking about any legal or constitutional arguments. Those are boring. There is nothing to argue about as the law is pretty clear.

 

[mrjurrs]

OK, but do such federal bribes to the states (with the strings attached to them) increase or reduce state government power?

Serious misrepresentation of the term bribe. Were the feds bribing the states to accept payments for summer lunch programs? I don't see that offering to pay for something that benefits people in your state is a bribe. It's an economic transaction. The state can take it or leave it. Accepting the conditions attached to receiving a payment does not seem like a bribe to me.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

I'm not talking about legal arguments. While you can make constitutional arguments if you want, conservatives will often argue that regardless of the law ethically states having strong rights compared to the central government is good. Local government understands local problems better. Solving problems at the lowest level of government. Etc. But wouldn't all those arguments apply to cities or counties as well? Why do those people only seem to care about the "rights" of states but oppose empowering cities?

I mean to be clear I know why but I want to hear conservatives who support the arguments I made about state's rights explain why those arguments don't apply to cities.

Cities, towns and villages were never granted colony status by the mother government and therefore were subservient to the colony. Existing by caveat of the colony

 

[mrjurrs]

I very very specifically said that I am talking about the positive ethical arguments that are made for why state ought to have rights/some autonomy. Conservatives will argue that them being a independent as they are is a good think and a better form of government.

I'm am NOT talking about any legal or constitutional arguments. Those are boring. There is nothing to argue about as the law is pretty clear.

And if the law is clear, what do ethics have to do with it?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Cities, towns and villages were never granted colony status by the mother government and therefore were subservient to the colony. Existing by caveat of the colony

I'm talking about ethically. Conservatives argue that more local governance is morally good on its own merits. I stated in OP I am not talking about legal arguments.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

And if the law is clear, what do ethics have to do with it?

?

The law was clear about slavery. The law is clear about abortion in many states.

Conservatives argue for local government on a moral basis (I listed out some of the arguments they make in OP). You argue things ethically/morally when you are arguing how the world ought to be. Ethics have everything to do with it.

 

[DrewPaul]

I very very specifically said that I am talking about the positive ethical arguments that are made for why state ought to have rights/some autonomy. Conservatives will argue that them being a independent as they are is a good think and a better form of government.

I'm am NOT talking about any legal or constitutional arguments. Those are boring. There is nothing to argue about as the law is pretty clear.

One reason is it offers a variety of ways to solve problems.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

One reason is it offers a variety of ways to solve problems.

I agree. In fact I am actually in favor of more local government generally. But conservatives seem to support state rights but don't really support cities having a lot of autonomy from their state governments.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The Republican contempt for urban America has ended subsidiarity as a conservative political principle. At least in Texas.

When those city folk start getting crazy ideas about how best to manage their affairs, Rep. Buford C. Trumplicker (R-Armalite City) will be sure to bring them to heel.

 

[multivita-man]

Why do conservatives always rep state's rights and promote states having significant powers relative to the federal government...but not city rights relative to the state or county rights?

Because the feds ****-block their moves on authoritarianism and cities don't.

 

[mrjurrs]

?

The law was clear about slavery. The law is clear about abortion in many states.

Conservatives argue for local government on a moral basis (I listed out some of the arguments they make in OP). You argue things ethically/morally when you are arguing how the world ought to be. Ethics have everything to do with it.

Next time you break the law, see how the 'it's unethical' argument works. Laws are amoral. The people that pass them are not.

What rights should cities or counties have that are not included in their rights already?