Should Wildfires in CA be regulated by state-federal regulations?

 Before diving into the topic of this post, it's important to understand what power the state government holds as well as the local governments powers as well in California. According to the United States Constitution-- "the powers not delegated to the national government by the Constitution 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'." (Sidlow, p.391). Each state has their own state constitution, and the power to create their own amendments and are typically longer and more detailed than the U.S. Constitution itself. Amendments can be proposed to state legislation through the process specified in the state's Constitution; some states allow citizens to propose amendments which is called an initiative. California is one of those states that allows citizens to suggest a state amendment. This is a form of direct democracy and allows voters to have a direct voice in their government. There are three types of initiatives that can be made: legislative initiatives, direct initiatives, and indirect initiatives. Legislative initiatives are used for proposing new statutory laws within a state and uses a petition. Direct initiative goes directly on a ballet white a indirect initiative goes to the state legislature first and if passed goes to the ballot. Referendums are similar to initiatives expected rather than proposed by a citizen, its proposed by a legislature first and then presented to the voters of the state. 

Recently, the wildfires of 2020 have been more notable than previous years. Fires are a common occurrence in California however the amount of fires and size of these fires the past weeks have affected many Californians whether its losing homes, facilities, causing people health issues due to the unusually horrible air quality; to say the least the fires could not be ignored. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say-more-fires-should-be-left-to-burn-so-why-arent-they

This article from NPR gives the perspective from ecologists why putting out fires can be detrimental. The truth is, California has always had wildfires (the problem may be the unintentional human started fires). Many of the recent fires started after a lightening storm swept through the west coast. These fires ecologist note are actually normal and healthy for California forests. In recent history the attitude towards fires has been fear and is met with the automatic response to put these fires out as fast as possible. Ecologists note that letting forests overgrow and not organically have fires actually makes them a bigger fire hazard and is unsafe. 

The attitude of fear of fires has not always been the case, furthur back in history natives of the west cost did spiritual rituals where there were controlled burns of the forest to cultivate new growth. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along

The new settlers didn't understand the natives reasoning for fire being used as a tool and overtime used state legislation to ban controlled burns of the forest. I believe that the most recent events show that our state's choice to fear fire rather than embrace it as a natural part of our ecosystem is detrimental. I hope that these events and the more outspoken voice of people of color help amplify the voices of the natives and their knowledge of the earth. California should create an amendement to change the approach to wildfires and create more detailed laws that include the use of controlled burns. Local governments only exist because the state government allows them to; therefore if the state created a new amendment around fires, local firestations would have to follow the state laws. I think this would help California's ecosystem, restore back some respect to the natives that have been treated awfully by our laws, and also change our state's cultural attitude towards fire from fear to seeing fire as a tool.

Federalism

 The concept of federalism makes sense not only for the reality our founding fathers lived in, but also in the reality of America today. Our founding fathers had a personal experience with what it felt like to have a government where the national government's decisions were end all be all. There also seemed to be a lot extra steps for the colonists to feel heard by the British and even then, the British used the colonist more for their own benefits rather than giving the people the colonies of a voice. What took place may have been inevitable; the colonies had space away from the British rule and in turn were able to learn how to self govern even before the constitution was thought of. The ideal to make sure the voice of local government had a voice that could affect national choices makes sense and the idea that a national government still needs to exist to keep the American government strong was a great solution. America's choice to adopt federalism still is applicable today; as the text stated, our country is bigger than most, federalism allows such a vast country that has a melted pot of people to govern themselves in a way where one group doesn't have the ultimate voice. The voice of the people is what allows a democracy to thrive and remain a democracy. From personal experience, I can say that our states can feel like countries within themselves; though I grew up in California, I have a lot of family in Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. I've spent a lot of time in all four places and the lifestyle, political perspective, and attitude towards certain social standards is very unique to each state. One of the drawbacks is that because states and local governments do have a powerful voice, it can slow down the national government from making decisions that may be in society as a whole's best interest. The other part of having strong local and state governments is what I previously mentioned; there is a lack of uniformity between states and it can result in laws/regulations in different states conflicting with eacother. 

The powers given to national government and/or state governments are outlined in the constitution. The text points out that though there is a outline written in the constitution, the outlines are still vague. The supreme court has to use their own critical thinking on how to interpret the constitution best; the states and national government have directly expressed powers and then the powers not defined allow the state and government have implied power. When it comes to local powers and their relationship it surprised me that the state government can veto any regulations created by local governments in their state. I was also shocked to learn how grants really worked. I never thought about how they could be used as bargaining chips as well as cause chaos rather than harmony. The example that stood out the most to me was the No Child Left Behind program; I remember when that was applied at my elementary school and I remember my parents getting notice about it. I also didn't realize as a child or even later upon reflection that these regulations forced schools in districts that were financially struggling to have even more financial instability to try and meet the national program's requirements. To me that seems inherently flawed, and if a national program beings, the national government wouldn't be working in the people's best interest by causing a local and state government stress. To me , it sounds like a good way for the national government to manipulate states the way the text suggested they already do with money. 

The constitution is open ended however I think though it can potentially lead to misuse of power the ideal was to allow elected officials that would be an accurate reflection of the peoples voice and would in turn interpret the constitution in the peoples best interest. The goal of federalism I believe is to facilitate the process of democracy.

The Declaration of Independence & The US Constitution.

 The U.S. Constitution was written to strengthen the country's government system and replace the Articles of Confederation. The turmoil between federalists wanted to make sure the rights of the minority groups were protected and the anti-federalists feared that the government would catalyze a government that could potentially encroach on personal freedom. Therefore the constitution was written under the condition that a bill of rights was also written. "It is the people who run the government and decide on the powers that the government can exercise. If the government exercises powers beyond those granted to it by the Constitution, it is acting illegally. The idea that no one is above the law, including government officers, is often called the rule of law."(p.38, Sidlow). This led to the principles of a limited government, popular sovereignty and federalism intertwined into the American government system. The federal system, central government and state governments have shared powers that allow them to use the principle of "checks and balances" that promotes each group and branch of government to be accountable to each other. Ideally this would stop one person, group or branch to cease power of the government system. The Constitution however can be openly interpreted and it's important to remember the constitution was written to protect it's citizens which at the time were limited to white men and women.  Slaves and natives to the land were not considered nor protected by the constitution. Another example of consequence as a result of the ambiguity of the constitution was during Bush's presidency. Bush attempted to cease power of the executive branch and used the power given to him in the constitution as commander in chief of our armed forces, to bring our country into a war that many citizens felt was wrong. Because the constitution protected Bush's right to lead America's armed forces, no other government branch could intervene and stop him from misusing his power.

The Declaration of Independence was a powerful move made by the colonists to separate themselves from the British rule. Before reading the text, I didn't understand how much the British taxed the colonists and had never considered the issues of representation and inability to be able to afford taxes while building their own militia. The Declaration of Independence was very well written however it has discrepancies that do not align with the current state of 2020. Slavery grew into an industrialized industry, specifically in the south and it seems hypocritical for our declaration to claim all men were created equal. It also should be noted that woman were also not mentioned within this declaration. There are powerful sentiments in this document that I believe people in 2020 are still fighting for. There are many minority groups that are still fighting to be seen as equal to white, males in our country. A few include women, LBGTQ members, people of color and even people of certain religions that are persecuted by our current system. I do not believe hope has been given up; the first pilgrims came here with the American dream of freedom and the American dream today still reflects the hope that there will be freedom for all citizens. 

 I was born in India;  India's constitution was also made to replace the Government of India Act in order to strengthen the government. India's constitution declares sovereignty, secular and socialist principles and promises to uphold the liberty, justice and equality of all citizens. The Indian constitution became effective in 1950 and was influenced by other constitutions that existed in other countries across the globe. The constitution of India is very young, it has similar values to the U.S. constitution but my personal understanding and opinion of the Indian government is that it does not have a good "checks and balances" system. It is widely known that the government system in India is very corrupt, many are motivated by money and there is still an unspoken caste system that leads to many inequalities between citizens.

The Contours of American Democracy

 Learning about the outline of the American Government as well as about other government structures within the world other than democracy was very informative. I agree with the text that "People are not perfect. People need an organized form of government and a set of rules by which to live. ... They would need to create a process for making rules and a form of government to enforce those rules." (pg.3, Sidlow). Similar to the text, I can see that each community needs set, agreed upon principles to protect the society as a whole. I also believe that government is not only essential for the community but for the individual as well. For an individual to be able to function well in society and feel as if their rights are protected. Examples of this is an individual feeling protected after someone damages their property (regardless the reason a person is angry enough to damage property in the first place)and being able to report it and get justice without having to be violent back. Another example is law protecting an individual with a disability by allowing them to have an service animal regardless of a landlord's pet policy. These circumstances warrant protection and a government system can help protect the individuals quality of life as much as it protects the quality of a society. 

America is a unique country because it is filled with different cultures, religions, ethnicity and as the text suggested, the government is really the only "agreed upon" principles that our country's people have. I never understood the clear difference between politics and government. Sidlow defines politics and the process of resolving conflicts in society pertaining to public resources while government is made up of people and institutions that create and uphold societies rules. Though I  have heard in the past that democracy came into existence thousands of years ago such as in Athens, Greece, I did not know there were different forms of democracy (direct democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy, parliamentary democracy). The principles of American democracy were characterized by Sidlow as five fundamental principles: equality in voting, individual freedom, equal protection of the law, majority rule and minority rights, and voluntary consent to be governed. Aligned with these principles are the ideas of liberty and equality that Americans value and are willing to fight for. As I read the text, I can agree those five principles encompass the American dream however I do not yet see that our current political state reflects those governmental goals because there are still minorities in our country that are fighting for our government to uphold those principles for them.