Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people, which are divided between State and local governments. Show
Most Americans have more frequent contact with their State and local governments than with the Federal Government. Police departments, libraries, and schools—not to mention driver’s licenses and parking tickets—usually fall under the oversight of State and local governments. Each state has its own written constitution, and these documents are often far more elaborate than their Federal counterpart. The Alabama Constitution, for example, contains 310,296 words—more than 40 times as many as the U.S. Constitution. All State governments are modeled after the Federal Government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The U.S. Constitution mandates that all States uphold a “republican form” of government, although the three-branch structure is not required. Executive BranchIn every state, the Executive Branch is headed by a governor who is directly elected by the people. In most states, other leaders in the executive branch are also directly elected, including the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and auditors and commissioners. States reserve the right to organize in any way, so they often vary greatly with regard to executive structure. Legislative BranchAll 50 States have legislatures made up of elected representatives, who consider matters brought forth by the governor or introduced by its members to create legislation that becomes law. The legislature also approves a State’s budget and initiates tax legislation and articles of impeachment. The latter is part of a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government that mirrors the Federal system and prevents any branch from abusing its power. Except for one State, Nebraska, all States have a bicameral legislature made up of two chambers: a smaller upper house and a larger lower house. Together the two chambers make State laws and fulfill other governing responsibilities. (Nebraska is the lone state that has just one chamber in its legislature.) The smaller upper chamber is always called the Senate, and its members generally serve longer terms, usually four years. The larger lower chamber is most often called the House of Representatives, but some states call it the Assembly or the House of Delegates. Its members usually serve shorter terms, often two years. Judicial BranchState judicial branches are usually led by the State supreme court, which hears appeals from lower-level State courts. Court structures and judicial appointments/elections are determined either by legislation or the State constitution. The supreme court focuses on correcting errors made in lower courts and therefore holds no trials. Rulings made in State supreme courts are normally binding; however, when questions are raised regarding consistency with the U.S. Constitution, matters may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. Local governments generally include two tiers: counties, also known as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana, and municipalities, or cities/towns. In some States, counties are divided into townships. Municipalities can be structured in many ways, as defined by State constitutions, and are called, variously, townships, villages, boroughs, cities, or towns. Various kinds of districts also provide functions in local government outside county or municipal boundaries, such as school districts or fire protection districts. Municipal governments—those defined as cities, towns, boroughs (except in Alaska), villages, and townships—are generally organized around a population center and in most cases correspond to the geographical designations used by the United States Census Bureau for reporting of housing and population statistics. Municipalities vary greatly in size, from the millions of residents of New York City and Los Angeles to the few hundred people who live in Jenkins, Minnesota. Municipalities generally take responsibility for parks and recreation services, police and fire departments, housing services, emergency medical services, municipal courts, transportation services (including public transportation), and public works (streets, sewers, snow removal, signage, and so forth). Whereas the Federal Government and State governments share power in countless ways, a local government must be granted power by the State. In general, mayors, city councils, and other governing bodies are directly elected by the people. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court cited the Equal Footing Doctrine cases in support of its assertion that “there is . . . a ‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among the States.” While the Court’s application of the equal sovereignty principle to strike down part of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County was dubious, its basic assertion was correct. The Admissions Clause empowers Congress to admit new states “into this Union.” As Senator Trumbull explained in 1870, these words implicitly reflect a fundamental constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty: “The States which formed this Union were coequal States. . . . Congress has authority to admit new States into the Union. Into what Union? A Union of coequal States. There is no authority to admit States into any other Union. . . . You have a different Union if you have a Union of unequal States.” The Court made this same point in Coyle v. Smith (1911): But what is this power? It is not to admit political organizations which are less or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those political entities which constitute the Union. The power is to admit “new States into this Union.” “This Union” was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority. To maintain otherwise would be to say that the Union, through the power of Congress to admit new States, might come to be a union of States unequal in power.. The Admissions Clause’s Equal Footing Doctrine is therefore a specific manifestation of a general constitutional principle of state sovereign equality that is “necessarily implied and guarantied by the very nature of the Federal compact.” Withers v. Buckley (1857). As one federal court put it in the late nineteenth century, “[t]he doctrine that new states must be admitted . . . on an ‘equal footing’ with the old ones . . . rest[s] . . . on what is considered . . . to be the general character and purpose of the union of the states . . . —a union of political equals.” Case v. Toftus (C.C.D. Or. 1889). Or, in the Supreme Court’s words from Withers, the “perfect equality” of all of the “members of the Confederacy” with regard to their “attributes as . . . independent sovereign Government[s]” “follow[s] from the very nature and objects of the Confederacy, [and] from the language of the Constitution.” From Coyle: “[T]he constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized. When that equality disappears we may remain a free people, but the Union will not be the Union of the Constitution.” Another PerspectiveThis essay is part of a discussion about the Admissions Clause with Eric Biber, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law. Read the full discussion here. As such, while the Admissions Clause and the Equal Footing Doctrine themselves concern only the admission of new states, the equal sovereignty principle, upon which the Equal Footing Doctrine is based, is much broader. “Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.” Escanaba Co. v. Chicago (1883). “There can be no distinction between the several States of the Union in the character of the jurisdiction, sovereignty and dominion which they may possess and exercise over persons and subjects within their respective limits.” Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892). Thus, per Esconaba, Congress, even when it is exercising its legitimate powers, is constrained to respect the constitutionally mandated sovereign equality of all of the states. Congress cannot use its powers in a way that affords more sovereign authority to some states than to others. “The whole Federal system is based upon the fundamental principle of the equality of the States under the Constitution. The idea that one State is debarred [by Congress], while the others are granted, the privilege of amending their organic laws to conform to the wishes of their inhabitants, is so repugnant to the theory of their equality under the Constitution that it cannot be entertained.” Bolln v. Nebraska (1900). This axiom was born of history. At the Constitutional Convention, the notion of equal sovereignty consistently held center stage. The small-state delegates in particular insisted as part of their demand for equal representation in Congress that, as William Patterson put it, “[a] confederacy supposes sovereignty in the members composing it, and sovereignty supposes equality.” The large-state delegates did not disagree with the notion of equal sovereignty; they disagreed instead with the insistence that equal representation was necessary for equal sovereignty. They felt that, so long as each state ceded the same authority to the federal government, the states would retain equal sovereignty, regardless of the measure of representation in Congress. Hugh Williamson, for instance, expressed the view “that if the states were equally sovereign now, and parted with equal proportions of sovereignty, that they would remain equally sovereign.” The ultimate decision to afford the states equal representation in the Senate—a partial victory for the small states—was an explicit reflection of the equal sovereignty principle. As James Madison put it in The Federalist No. 39, “[t]he Senate . . . will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate.” Madison explained at the Virginia ratifying convention that the Constitution created “a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coequal sovereignties.” As such, Madison later wrote, it is constitutionally “impossible for Congress,” whether it is dealing with “new or old members of the Union, to vary the political equality of the States.” That principle has not changed in the intervening years. Though Congress should be afforded some leeway to deviate from the equal sovereignty principle when acting pursuant to its Reconstruction Amendment enforcement powers, the Civil War and Reconstruction did not abolish the fundamental constitutional principle of equal sovereignty. (Indeed, Coyle and most of the other Equal Footing cases postdate Reconstruction.) Rather, as John Bingham—perhaps the Reconstruction Era’s most influential legislator—explained, “equality of men and States before the law, was the watchword, the central, informing, vital thought of the Republican party.” At both the outset and the close of the war, the North insisted that the entire purpose of the war had been “to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired.” How does the US Constitution differ from many state constitutions quizlet?The U.S. Constitution differs from many state constitutions in that it has only seven articles and a much more rigorous amendment process. What is the first stage of the amendment process for the U.S. Constitution? the proposal of an amendment by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a national convention.
What are the basic principles on which California's Constitution is based?What are the basic principles on which all State constitutions are based? popular sovereignty, limited governor, separation of powers, checks and balances. Briefly trace the history of the California constitution.
What is the constitutional conflict in California over?This conflict arises where California state courts rely on the state constitution to define the rights of Californians, but the voters elect to force the state to adhere to federal definitions of similarly worded rights.
What is one of the most notable features of California's government compared with other states?According to the following chart comparing gubernatorial powers across state governments, California is the only state in the country that provides the governor with full budget-making powers and the ability to exercise the line-item veto on appropriations bills while not allowing the governor to serve unlimited terms ...
|
What is one way in which the state constitution of California differs from the U.S. Constitution?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 defrojeostern Inc.
