- How the U.S constitution governs and affects the intergovernmental relations in the United States.
Since the ratification of the United States constitutions more than 200 years ago, there have existed some controversial issues concerning the relationships between the state government and the national government. The main controversies always appear when the following two questions are asked. The first question is always about the nature of the union between the state governments and the federal government. The other questions that appears to be ambiguous with regard to the relationship between the two governments is always about the authority, duties, privileges, and responsibilities that the constitution reserves for the national government and the ones that are granted to the State government (Boyd, 1997, p.1). These questions have tended to cause hard times when it comes to provision of ruling by judges in courts especially when the rules from these respective governments clash.
However, there has been existence of a continuous debate over these questions time after time to an extent that these questions have shaped up and also been shaped up by the political, economic and social history of the nation (Boyd, 1997, p.1). It was until these questions led to formation of the federal government; which the United States constitution has recognized and through it, some directives are availed especially when it comes to issues that clash between the national and state governments. This is because federal government tend to balance the sovereignty among two or more governments. By balancing the sovereignty, the federal government provides directions in various matters by deciding when the national government is supreme and when the state government is superior over the government.
However, for federal government to operate there are always three main features that should be considered. The first consideration is the provision of two or more governments of different levels acting on the same citizens and on the same territory (Boyd, 1997, p.1). This feature therefore implies that both the national government and the governments of 50 other states in the U.S are recognized by the constitution. The other forms of governments that should be noted when discussing the federal government are the local governments. Even though they are not mentioned in the constitution it is important to note their authority to regulate and legislate are authorized from the constitution. The second feature that is always associated by the federal government is the existence of authority and power sharing within the respective governments (Boyd, 1997, p.1). Looking at this feature, it is then clear that the existence of separate and parallel governments with varying rules and regulations might lead to clashing of power in some matters. Therefore the U.S constitution have it that in matters where there exist a clash between two different governments, the federal government’s directive is upheld (O’Toole, 2011 p.300).
The other feature of the federal government that also help in maintaining good interrelation between the national government and the federal government is the provision which states that neither the federal nor state governments should undermine or abolish the other(O’Toole, 2011 p.305). This implies that the federal government should assist the state government should the state government have a problem and the state government should also in turn support the federal government in matters of national security and economic development. It can therefore be argued that even though the federal government has help in promoting good relationship between the governments, there are still some limitations that comes with it . For example the Gonzales case about the marijuana. Regarding this case it is clear that even though the Supreme Court ruled against the plantation of Marijuana for medicinal purposes, it is still planted in California (Boyd, 1997, p.1).
4) Effects of proposition 13 on local government in California
It was in June 1978 when California voters approved the proposition 13 by overwhelming voting for it. The proposition 13 acted as a channel through which the movement of modern- tax limitation emerged. It was after the implementation of the proposition 13 in California that other states adopted it. Consequently, the emergence of the proportion 13 impacted some effects to both the local government and the state of California (Sexton, Sheffrin & O’Sullivan, 1999, p. 100). For instance some of the changes that were experienced in California State as a result of proposition 13 included the following:
- The proposition enhanced the reassessing of a properties’ market value once they were sold
- Both the state and local governments were prohibited from imposing other taxes on real property.
- Properties that experienced good sales in a particular year had their values increase simultaneously with that of the market though with less than 2 percent.
- Assessed values of every property were maintained to what it valued during the 1975-1976 period.
- The maximum tax was rated at 1 percent excluding pre-existing indebtedness.
The rapid rising of property value in the year 1970 was one of the factors that forced the voters to come up with the idea of approving the proposition 13. It is said that the property taxes which was being levied directly to homeowners experienced up to 10 percent increase within a span of 8 years. That was from the year 1970 to 1978. At this time the state had accumulated a surplus that was anticipated to be $10 billion would the proposition 13 fail to be approved (Sexton, Sheffrin & O’Sullivan, 1999, p. 101).
Apart from the cut of property tax rate, the other impact that resulted as a result of the proposition 13 was the moderation property tax liabilities changes that were being experienced before after every year. The moderation of tax liabilities consequently resulted in the increase in market value thus influencing the residents of California to pay their taxes (Sexton, Sheffrin & O’Sullivan, 1999, p. 101). The ability and willingness and ability for the taxpayers to pay their taxes then eventually motivated the reassessment cap of 2 percent yearly. Through this payment of tax, the local government then recorded a better chunk to sustain itself compared to the initial time before the passage of the 13 proposition. The other factor that also resulted from the passage of the 13 proposition was the reform in education finance. It is argued that the court ruling required the state government to spend educational funding equally to all the school district. This ruling therefore implied that property tax was no longer going to be used in funding the education.
As much as proposition 13 resulted to a number of positive effects towards the state of California, there were also a number of some few negative impacts that resulted from it. One limitation which was experienced as a result of the acquisition value-tax system is inequality in some property taxes. Looking at the fact that the horizontal equality prefers equal household treatment in equal market value dwelling, it can therefore be argued that the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the proposition 13 was contradictive. This is because the proposition 13 enhanced the rolling back of the property value in accordance to the initial market value regardless of the time one might have bought it (Sexton, Sheffrin & O’Sullivan, 1999, p. 101).
5) Existence of the public interest groups
Interest group is that organization that is formed by people with common interest towards something. These people always come together in promoting and protecting their interests by influencing the government. Interest groups exist in different varieties. There are those that vary according to size, goals, and tactics (Hays, 2001, p. 95). However, political scientists generally categorise interest groups in to two major parts namely; economical and noneconomic groups. Generally it can be argued that interest groups do help in shaping public policy. In America, some people refer to them as self-interested with disregard for public good.
Moreover, it is important to note that these public interest groups do play some part in the society especially when the public want to speak their voices to the government. The main purpose of interest groups is always to convey the views of the public to the government. The other role of the interest group is commonly to defend interests of respective societies to officials of the public. Interest groups do conduct their activities in two major ways. One of the ways involves the direct interaction with government officials. This method is known as the “inside game” and it always involve a few representative for the group who hold up discussion with government officials. The other method which is known as the “outside game” always involve mobilization of the public to form indirect group activities that can help in piling pressure on the elected leaders (Hays, 2001, p. 101).
Interest groups tend to influence government in different ways. The first way through which an interest group can influence the government is through the discussions. A representative of an interest group can decide to educate some top government officials on issues that the government might appear not to be fully equipped with. For instance a representative of an interest group might organize a meeting with top government officials to educate them with the knowledge of how to tackle the issue of unemployment within the country. The thoughts of interest group representatives do have a large weight due to the fact that they always speak the mind of the people from the ground. This therefore implies that their mind piece normally influence the government proceedings (Hays, 2001, p. 100).
On the other hand, it is also important to highlight that interest groups’ activities might influence the government negatively. This situation is commonly experienced when the government activities are against the rule of law or is against the rights of the public. For instance, during the black struggle in America, black Americans were mobilized to practise boycotts. Eventually the boycotts forced the government to listen to their cries after a long while (Hays, 2001, p. 101). Looking at this example, it is then evidence that interest groups can influence the governments’ decision.
References
Boyd, E. (1997 Jan 6). American Federalism, 1776 to 1997: Significant Events. Retrieved from http://www.cas.umt.edu/polsci/faculty/greene/federalismhistory.htm
Hays, R. A. (2001). Who Speaks for the Poor? National Interest Groups and Social Policy. Rutledge: London.
O’Toole, L. J. (2006). American intergovernmental relations: foundations, perspectives, and issues. New York: CQ Press.
Sexton, T. A., Sheffrin, S. M. & O’Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended Effects and Feasible Reforms. National Tax Journal, 52(1), 99-112.
