Texas Perspective of Federalism and its Relationship with Federal Government

Some Texans describe state sovereignty as an effort to thwart the rights of racial and ethnic minorities. Conversely, other Texans view state sovereignty as a way of reducing the growing federal government that is believed to become too powerful and undertakes roles that states could perform better. In general, Texas is concerned with the coercive power shown by the federal government over the state governments. The relationship between Texas and the federal government is coercive (Jones, Maxwell, Crain, Davis, & Wlezein, 2016).

Many Texans argue that a new form of federalism known as coercive federalism was introduced in the late 1970s. Coercive federalism is the relationship between the states and the national government in which the national government directs the states on the roles they should undertake. Shifting to coercive federalism has made the federal government to centralize more power and blocks the states when they try to handle policies which the federal government does not concur. Majority of Texans are unhappy with the encroachment of the federal government especially in a recent attempt by Washington to gain more control over several Texas programs. The federal grants form the second largest source of revenue in Texas, and the amount of revenue provided by the government has increased in recent years (Jones, Maxwell, Crain, Davis, & Wlezein, 2016).

Issues Overview

Texas has been involved in suits against the federal government concerning several issues including school bathrooms, immigration, and abortion clinic regulations. Texas suits against the federal government are on the rise, and one can tell that currently, Texas is not thrilled with Washington.

Texas and other states filed a federal lawsuit challenging the executive actions of President Obama on immigration. These states argued that the president violated his constitutional role in enforcing the laws and increasing the burden on the state budgets.  President Obama had announced that the federal government would provide work permits and protection to approximately five million immigrants in the United States of America. The states challenged the president by arguing that he was abdicating his responsibility to enforce laws enacted by the Congress and trying to rewrite immigration laws and he had no authority to do so. Mr. Abbott, the attorney general stated that Texas was qualified to challenge Obama’s executive order since Texas had suffered the brunt of drug-associated cross-border crime and illegal immigration. Republicans in Texas have constantly attacked the federal government on immigration policies (Montgomery & Julia, 2014).

Furthermore, Texas and other ten states filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government over federal guidance about directing schools to permit transgender students to utilize restrooms and other facilities related to their gender identities. The states argued that there was no room in schools for discrimination including the discrimination against transgender students. The Attorney General Lynch wrote a letter to the federal government concerning the Texas lawsuit. Lynch stated that the letter contained a guidance that permitted parents, teachers, and administrators the necessary tools to protect transgender students from discrimination. Several State officials from Texas accused the president of issuing directives on matters that should be handled by the Congress. The Governor of Texas stated that Texas filed the lawsuit to protect district schools concerning the policy of using bathrooms in schools. However, the officials of the federal government denied the allegations on gender discrimination and argued that the directive from the president was intended to safeguard the privacy of the students (Berman and Moriah, 2016).

The federal government appealed a court debate limiting out-of-state handgun purchase. Former President Obama stated that he would increase federal licensing to promote background checks and provide new resources to the agencies that are responsible for enforcing gun laws and licensed dealers. A group of Texas officials opposed the president’s move on handgun transfer ban. The officials argued that the gun control policy interferes with the constitutional rights of the law-abiding citizens. One of the judges in the Texas Northern District Federal court agreed with the Texas officials that federal laws were unconstitutional and they undermine the rights of the states to administer their gun laws (Paul, 2016).

My opinion

I support the federal government directing schools to permit transgender students to utilize restrooms and other facilities related to their gender identities. Schools should maintain the female and male restrooms and create a separate restroom for the transgender students. Allocating students restrooms based on their gender cannot be classified as sexual harassment or any form of gender discrimination but safeguarding the privacy of every student. Public restrooms are increasingly divided basing on gender and gender is segregated according to anatomical features and not behaviors or emotions. If a man removes his organs, he will remain to be a man. This is not discrimination it is a fact. However, the president was wrong by failing to seek consent from the Congress about the issue. The public needs to get on board and impose fiscal restraints on the federal government and limit the powers of some officials in the federal government.

I think the federal government went against its mandate on issuing the controversial rules on immigration. The new immigration rules will encourage illegal crossings of immigrants in Texas, forcing the state to spend additional funds on education, healthcare, and law enforcement. The ban on immigration deportation will also promote drug smuggling in the state and will lead to an increase in criminal activities in Texas. Instead, the federal government should have hastened the deportation of immigrants and make laws that will regulate immigration in the country. Moreover, the states should be allowed to have their policies regarding illegal immigration.

I also do not support the federal laws on gun control because it impinges the constitutional rights of citizens who are law-abiding. The gun control laws also undermine the rights of the states to administer their gun laws.

Conclusion

The relationship between Texas and the federal government is coercive. Shifting to coercive federalism has made the federal government to centralize more power and blocks the states when they try to handle policies which the federal government does not concur. Texas has been involved in suits against the federal government concerning several issues including school bathrooms, immigration, and abortion clinic regulations. Texas and other states filed a federal lawsuit challenging the executive actions of President Obama on immigration. Furthermore, Texas and other ten states filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government over federal guidance about directing schools to permit transgender students to utilize restrooms and other facilities related to their gender identities. I support the federal government directing schools to permit transgender students to utilize restrooms and other facilities related to their gender identities. I think the federal government went against its mandate on issuing the controversial rules on immigration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *