Prop A Promotes Partisan Policy, Not Principles

Proponents of Prop A have been selling a tainted bill of goods to grassroots conservatives.  Supposedly, 'local control' of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department represents the purest of Jeffersonian principles, identified in this quote:

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.  What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government, which has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body...

Notice the "..." at the end there.  I mention this because this is how one individual, representing an organization funded to promote issues such as Prop A, has presented it.  Well, as it turns out, this quote has been taken completely out of context, in order to sell that tainted bill of goods.  You see, this quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Joseph C. Cabell, and just prior to the aforementioned quote comes this line from Jefferson:

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence [sic] of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. (emphasis added)

Perhaps, the omission was quite innocent, but in light of the amount of money being spent for a statewide referendum that really only relates to the City of St. Louis (and its effect on the surrounding counties), I doubt it.

As I have argued in forums & threads, constitutionally speaking there are only two subdivisions: the national government & the governments of the several states.  This relationship is governed by the principle of federalism.  And as we all know, the national government is one of limited powers, while the state governments are ones of general powers, as discussed in Federalist #45 & enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  Generally speaking, state powers consist of safety, health and education, and include state common law consensus on crime, contract and tort.

The current administration of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police does not violate the principle of federalism, and falls within the state power of safety, consistent with the Missouri Constitution.  Since we have established that no constitutional or Jeffersonian principle is at stake in the issue of Prop A, we can conclude that this is an issue of policy, and policy always boils down to partisan politics.  So, where did this policy of 'local control' originate?  Well, from Mayor Slay and the STL City Democrat Machine.  If you think they sit on the same side as you in partisan politics, then you would be doing them a favor by voting for Prop A.

I have my own Jefferson quote for this debate:

...unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

Does Prop A allow the mass to retain sufficient control?  Well, we can follow that question with another, "Has the STL City Democrat Machine ever lost an election?"  And, lest someone think I was taking a quote out of context, please check on the source.  Interestingly, in this same letter, written from Jefferson to Francois Adriaan van der Kemp, we get the following line:

The only orthodox object of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it.

What can we glean from this line?  Breaking Jeffersonian principle down into baser elements, such as 'local control,' detracts from the primary focus of Jefferson; simply put, "Does this function of government make those it affects happier?"  In the case of Prop A, I would have to argue no, in light of the fact that it has already garnered much opposition from conservative grassroots groups & GOP organizations in the STL area which follow:

Tea Party groups:

• St. Louis Tea Party
• K and N Patriots
• Jefferson County Tea Party

Republican Organizations:

• St. Louis City Central Committee
• St. Louis County Central Committee
• Jefferson County Republican Club
• Concord Village/Lemay Township
• Meramec Township
• Gravois Township
• Tesson Ferry Township
• Lewis and Clark Township
• Northwest Township
• Airport Township
• Wild Horse Township

Surely, the debate will continue, but for now:

VOTE NO ON PROP A

Comments

[Mike Smith]

The emphasis is being placed on the police in the following Jefferson quote being used as a rationale for the St. Louis PD to remain underneath state level control.

[Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself.]

Well we do have a state highway patrol that is under the purview of the state, so that one is covered. But you can't overlook the rest of the quote which states that counties down to wards need to direct their own interests. It seems to me that this is what Prop A is after is it not? To give St. Louis control of their own police department, regardless of how wonderful or inept they or the local officials may be.

I agree with the principle of local control and if they fail, because St. Louis is a Democrat machine ... so be it. If they fail, they can fix it. Either the people can elect people to fix it or keep it on track or the suffer the affect of their decision on who they vote for. It can't just be about Democrats being in charge. To me that goes against my foundational ideology. That's my opinion anyway.

[Evans]

Mike,

You are missing the point here. Prop A is being sold as a Jeffersonian principle, but it is not. Jefferson believed that safety (i.e. police) was a state power (there was no highway patrol in 1787), as did all of the signers of the Constitution.

As to 'local control,' you are not really promoting that concept when those in the area do not want it, as identified by the conservative organizations against Prop A that I listed. And how can a city fix anything when people vote with their feet. Giving STL City more rope only serves to hurt the entire region.

[Culture Vigilante]

The real proof that Prop A is suspect is to follow the money trail. Who is funding this proposal? BIG MONEY donors who have always influenced state and local governments are supporting this. RED FLAG!

[Roger C.]

Wasn't this setup with state control of the KC and StL police departments initiated because of corruption *coughPendergastZiegenheincough*? Should the question be more along the lines of "Will the police department remain as honest if the state control is removed, or will it grow more corrupt?"

[Jeannine]

"...the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally..."

Does the STLPD have jurisdiction throughout the state of Missouri? Or are they only concerned with the City of STL? We have a State Highway Patrol already.

The quote above includes the line "of what concerns THE STATE generally." A municipal police department should NOT concern the state, otherwise ALL municipal PDs would be under state control, correct?

PROP A will SAVE MISSOURI $4.5 MILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR (according to state auditors), and that's nothing to sneeze at! Smaller state government (check); local control for citizens of St. Louis (check); NO CHANGES IN PENSION BENEFITS (check). This is a no brainer for the tea party patriots.

[Terry]

John, do you realize that the tax payers of Missouri are on the hook for the first $1,000,000 of every lawsuit filed against a St Louis police officer because of state control?

John, do you realize that because of the Hancock amendment the tax payers of Missouri could possibly end up paying for the salaries and pensions of St Louis police officers if the leaders in the City of St Louis really pushed the issue?

Let St Louis control their own police department and pay their own bills.

[Terry]

Excuse the "John," I thought Mr. Loudon authored this piece.

[Givemeliberty]

What is the motive?

Is the motive money, or power, or both?

I think the SLPOA's pension costs may be rising rather sharply...up 33% ($8 million) this year. Governed by a state-appointed board, but the city must fund most of it, if I understand correctly. I think this might be where the problem is.

[Terry]

8 Million?? No, it's more like 33 Million, and Missouri taxpayers could be on the hook for part of that tab if the St Louis Police Department stays under "state control."

[Evans]

Terry,

MO is not on the hook for any of the pension or budget because the Hancock Amendment protects both state taxpayers & residents of STL. Admittedly, state taxpayers do cover some of the cost for lawsuits, but that could easily be changed via statute. The simple fact of the matter is that Mayor Slay is amassing power, so that he can take control of the pension, which the city has not paid into for years because they were too busy painting fire hydrants. People are leaving the city in droves because of of its gross mismanagement, so now we are talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As Gary has said on multiple occasions:
When non-STL Republicans cut deals with STL Democrats, STL conservatives lose.

[f.f.]

I think some people don't really understand how much money Mr. Sinquefield has tossed about in both St.Louis and Jeff city. He also funds several orginizations that push this local control agenda, the mayor didn't bring it up until Rex came into the picture. So, basically this isn't about the city gaining control of it's police department it's about some billionaire wanting this to happen for reasons I don't know. That bother's me, I would certainly like to know why he is pushing for this so hard.

[f.f.]

sorry...organizations*