< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
About a fortnight ago, a friend came by the house with a petition. It was addressed to the Salida City Council, and asked that body to pass a resolution stating its opposition an invasion of Iraq.
From what I read, similar petitions have circulated in other Colorado municipalities, and at least two city councils -- Boulder and Denver -- have adopted such resolutions. This has inspired some people to announce, in the letters columns of this newspaper, that they will boycott those cities, because they don't want their sales-tax dollars to finance the operations of municipalities which disagree with their views of U.S. foreign policy.
All this raises some interesting questions. We can start with the observation that municipalities do not have foreign policies. The federal constitution puts that responsibility on the executive and the Congress.
The President makes treaties and appoints ambassadors.
However, treaties require the advice and consent
of
the U.S. Senate, as well as the concurrence of two-thirds
of the Senate. Senate advice and consent is also required
for the appointment of ambassadors, consuls and the
like.
The House of Representatives gets involved in financing
any treaty obligations, since All bills for raising
Revenue shall originate in the House.
Further, it is
the exclusive power of Congress to declare war.
So any foreign-policy statement from another other level of government, like the local city council or town board, is just that -- a statement without any legal force or effect.
That said, we have two more questions: Do municipal governments have the right to make such statements, and if they have the right, should they make these statements?
Individual council members of course enjoy the right of free speech, and to express their views on any topic. As a body, their governmental powers are defined and limited, but I don't see how a municipal corporation would enjoy fewer free-speech rights than other corporations -- and our courts have held that corporations enjoy many civil rights.
So they probably enjoy the right to issue a statement about the invasion of Iraq. But should they?
I'm of two minds here. There's a good argument that they shouldn't. Foreign policy isn't their real business, and when they're arguing about whether to adopt a resolution that has no legal force, they're spending time and energy that they ought to devote to water supply, sewer service, law enforcement, fire protection, street maintenance, liquor licenses, building codes, pet control, zoning, planning and the scores of other matters that are their responsibilities.
And if council members want to express their opinions about foreign policy, they're free to mount soapboxes, write letters the editor or lobby their representatives and senators.
But on the other side, I ponder the likely local results of an invasion of Iraq. We don't have defense plants or military bases here; we have national forests and other public land. Military spending takes money that might have otherwise gone to something like forest-thinning to reduce the damage during the next wildfire season.
Our local economy relies on auto-based tourism. If gasoline prices rise even more, as is quite possible with an invasion of Iraq, it means fewer people who can afford the trip, and those who do come won't have as much money to spend. Plus, the general economic uncertainties of potential war mean that people are more likely to save their money, rather than enjoy a vacation fling in some little town in the mountains. Local sales-tax revenues decline and city services suffer.
So when I ponder the question from that perspective, I can't see any way that Salida would benefit from an invasion of Iraq, and I can see a lot of ways it could be harmed. That's the gist of the argument made by one of the local petition circulators, former mayor Jaime Lewis.
If that's the case, then who should speak for the interests of the City of Salida? Isn't that the job of the mayor and city council, to decide what is in the city's best interest, and act accordingly? If they have good reasons to believe that the city will suffer if the United States invades Iraq, then aren't they obliged to protect the city's interest by speaking against the invasion?
This analysis ignores certain questions, like the national interest. But then again, it is a city council's job to worry about city's interest, not the national interest. Congress can presumably determine the national interest, either by declaring war or by impeaching and removing a president who tries to start a war without congressional authorization.
Congress hasn't done either. So it appears to be evading its constitutional responsibilities, just as some municipal governments are going beyond their formal responsibilities. That makes me feel better about my ambivalence about these resolutions, but I still don't know whether I should have signed that petition.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >