E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, February 8, 2016

Of course there should be limits on home rule.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)


It is such a terrible thing that the city council in Martinsville is not allowed to pass legislation banning black people from living in the city because of state law. To paraphrase the Bloomington Herald-Times, my opposition to the state anti-discrimination law dwarfs my reasoning for opposing a local ban on black people living in Martinsville. I do not agree with banning black people from any city, but as a supporter of home rule I think we should respect democracy and allow the voters to decide for themselves through their elected officials.

Note for the terminally stupid: That opening paragraph was satire.

It should be obvious to everyone why there are limits (and why there should be limits) to "home rule" - the ability of a city to legislate and manage its own affairs. Cities are not allowed to ban people of a certain race or religion, they are not allowed to randomly execute people on the street, they are not allowed to take property without compensating the owner, and they are not allowed to do a plethora of things because they are restricted by state law and the state constitution. For that matter, states are not allowed to do a plethora of things because of the federal constitution. Even as someone who is more adamant on states' rights than most, I recognize this is a good thing.

Government has checks and balances for a reason. In our system of government, we do not allow government to trample over individual rights or pass oppressive legislation just because it reflects "democracy" or the "will of the people." We do not let local government run rampant because restraining it would "silence the voices" of one thousand people who signed a petition. Home rule is important and states' rights are important, but limited government and individual liberty are also values that we have protected (if imperfectly) since the founding of our nation and state.

Now, whether allowing local government to ban plastic bags is a good idea is another debate. Personally, I think it is good that the state government protects our freedom to make our own choices in the grocery store against the tyranny of the majority. But even if one thinks it is bad public policy and that the city council should have the legal authority to pass this ban, using "home rule" is a simplistic argument. The readers of the Herald-Times deserve better than these weak arguments on a major public policy issue.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.