State of Texas and Texas cities

The arrangement between the cities of the state of Texas and Texas is not similar to that between the state of Texas and the federal government. To begin with, the state of Texas is looking more like California, as cities forbid items like chopping down trees. The State of Texas has been questioning the powers of multiple cities for years as well as the influence of private Texans, which is not the case when it comes to the relationship between the federal government and the State of Texas (Ruud 16). Additionally, unlike the relationship between the state of Texas and Texas cities, the relationship between the federal government and the state of Texas is effective in many ways. To start with, there are indirect federal benefits which result from the U.S Military Bases in Texas. Research has indicated that there exist more active duty United States Air Force, Marine Corps, Army as well as civilian military workers in Texas as compared to any state except Virginia and California. The active-duty troops and civilian workers bring economic benefits and provide vital jobs to the communities. The troops serve as an indirect way of the Federal Government through the military staffing to improve the economic status of Texas contributing close to $150 billion to the economy of Texas.

Moreover, the federal government in November 2012 made a move to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana to citizens of 21 years and above as well as taxing and regulating the sale and production of the drug. The federal government maintained that citizen from each state should obtain signatures to put the reforms on the ballot. However, the option does not exist in Texas. This is so because it is only the legislature that is authorized to place referenda before voters in Texas. For Texas and its cities, the possession of marijuana for personal use is a Class B crime punishable by around 180 day’s imprisonment as well as a fine of up to $2,000 (Ruud 56).

When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, the relationship is also not analogous. This is so because while the federal government maintains that each state including Texas should embrace the Act, the state of Texas mobilized its cities to object the Act. Just after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, General Greg joined other state attorneys in opposing the new act (Ruud 44). The reason behind the opposition was that the Act required individuals to purchase health insurance and states to expand the medical coverage. Any state that failed to comply was to lose every medical fund from the federal government.

The federal government is not constrained by any constitutional limitation to enter into treaties or alliances with Texas or any other state. However, as a member of the federal union, the state of Texas is constrained by limitations of Article I, Section 10 of the American Constitution. For instance, the State of Texas cannot enter into alliances without the consent of the Congress. Additionally, the state cannot levy import duties on the products of another state.

While the relationship between the state of Texas and its Cities is effective, the relationship between Texas and the federal government faces numerous obstacles. It has been proved that Texans do not trust the federal government, but they highly rely on federal disaster funds than any other state. The state of Texas is unable to adopt proactive postures towards disaster, and the federal government continues to serve as the backstop even after the animosity towards FEMA and other federal agencies (Ruud 66).

When it comes to Casino Gambling, the federal government permits every state to adopt different laws according to the preference as well as the customs of the residents. This means that even the cities that share borders maintain policies that differ regarding the same activity. The state of Texas maintains the ban on gambling following some principles of opposition. The first one is based on the moral principle with most of the Texans believing that gambling is morally wrong for the state. The second one is based on the belief that the casino establishment will increase the social problems like domestic violence, crimes as well as child neglect. Until today those opposing casino gambling in Texas has retained the upper hand which is not the case between the federal government and other states.

When it comes to constitutional relationships, the U.S constitution to different states is very brief which allows the federal government to interpret the Constitution broadly. The Texas Constitution, on the other hand, is long and detailed with numerous statutory provisions specifying precisely what the Texas government is supposed to do to different cities. In the case of challenges relating to public policy, the Texas public officials, unlike the federal government, lacks the option of interpreting the constitution in a way that would allow them to move away from the specific language of the document. They must amend the constitution whenever they wish to act outside the detailed language outlined in the basic law.

However, some scholars argue that the relationship is analogous. They base their argument on the fact that just like how the federal government imposes the unfunded mandates on Texas, the state of Texas also does the same to different institutions within its states. The unfunded mandates are the obligation imposed on state government by the federal government while offering little or no finances to fund the mandated activities. The federal government obligates Texas to implement and pay for different policies or risk losing the federal funds. The state of Texas has also developed unfunded mandates that require the local government as well as other public institutions like universities to take different actions without giving the entities adequate funds to implement to implement the requirements (Ruud 32).

It is, evident from the discussion that even if some people feels that the relationship between the federal government and the state of Texas is analogous to the relationship between Texas and Texas cities, it is not. This can be explained following the benefits the state of Texas gains from the federal government concerning the U.S military base in Texas. Additionally, the laws regulating the use of marijuana differ with the federal government legalizing the substance while the state of Texas takes the drug to be illegal. The issue of affordable care act also differs as the State of Texas opposes the Act while the federal government maintains that every state should comply with the Act. When it comes to the constitutional limitations, the relationship is also not analogous.

Work Cited

Ruud, Millard H. "Legislative Jurisdiction of Texas Home Rule Cities." Tex. L. Rev. 37 (1958): 682.