"Frederalism"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Republicans — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred Thompson could certainly go places with his emphasis on federalism. For one thing, he would do the body politic a great favor in reminding it that the concept is not dead, that it is part and parcel of our Constitutional and national tradition and that we ought to revive and revisit the idea to help pave the way towards resolving some of our tougher and more intractable political debates.
Small government works best and it is what the Founders intended, having placed in the Constitution specific and defined powers for each of the branches of government and having restricted those branches in their ability to exercise power. Federalism is a tremendously useful method by which small government can be achieved. Fred Thompson will do himself a lot of favors by promoting it. And more importantly, he'll help the Republic out in the process.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | In which we say something nice about Susan Collins (R-ME). — Comments (5) »
"Frederalism" 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Is he Rudy offers it up as a reason to ignore his record in NYC. Sorry, but I'm not buying. I've seen too many politicians, Democrats included, try to play the same game when it suits them politically.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Fred knows he can't be all things to all people; he's a federalist, even when it means disagreeing with the President and Bill Frist and saying that the federal government had no role to play in the Terry Schiavo case.
Consistency in a candidate can be so refreshing!
Any candidate ought to get specific and not just repeat the word like it's a meditative mantra. It should be relatively simple to discern whether a candidate really adheres to the principle or merely pays it lip service, for example:
1. Will you spin down and terminate the NCLB program?
2. Will you veto legislation that imposes a single nation-wide standard for marriage?
3. Will you instruct the DOJ/DEA to stop pursuing medical marijuana cases in states that have legalized its use in those scenarios?
1) Federal involvement in education is neither prohibitted nor expressly granted. Much as I dislike the program, it isn't necessarily anti-Federalist. To the extent there is an anti-federalist problem with federal support of education, I believe it flows from a misreading of the non-establishment clause into the wall of separation.
2. Such legislation is clearly necessitated by the full faith and credit clause. Granted, again we would probably not be facing this probelm if activist judges hadn't jiu-jitsued the law.
3. Again, clearly not federalist, as the federalist principle is that federal law trumps local legislation when the two conflict, unless the federal law is expressly prohibitted by the constitution, (but even then it is unconstitutional as opposed to anti-federalist).
1) The federal government is only allowed the powers it is expressly granted in the Constitution. Education isn't mentioned, therefore the 10th Amendment applies.
2)I agree with Gadfly
3)Again, federal law is only permitted to apply to certain situations. Controlling marijuana just ain't one of them. Whether a law unconstitutional has no bearing on whether or not it is also anti-federalist.
I think you're confusing it with constructionism, two related but different cornerstone of conservativism.
Federalism's the idea that domestic issues are resolved best by more local governments. That's why zroxx opposes NCLB -- according to federalism, support and control of education shouldn't be at the national level, but rather at the state or even the district level. Same thing with the War on Drugs -- why is it a national issue, except in terms of securing the border against illegal trafficking? A federalist would hold that a better solution would be for individual states to create and enforce their own drug laws.
As for marriage, Fred is already on the record as supporting the federalist solution: a Constitutional amendment voiding the full faith and credit clause in the case of gay marriage, without instituting a nationwide definition of marriage.
-
NARF
Federalism means the federal government operates within its enumerated powers and leaves the rest to the states. [I know my definition is imperfect but I don't think it is too far off]. Under federalist principles, the federal government should stay out of local education, states' definition of marriage, and states' criminal code. Federalism means that, as President, Fred might have to tolerate terminally ill people smoking marijuana in Oregon as well as Hank and Frank walking down the aisle in Massachusetts.
If not explained well, the whole federalism idea just sounds confusing, grandiose, and relatively impractical to the average person. It sounds like some big word that won't necessarily change anything about anything other than to change who lauds power over you.
But if Fred can key in on the bitterness and divisiveness in politics these days and how much people are frustrated by it, he can sell people on the idea that federalism is the fix for it. The reason there's so much red state-blue state division, bitterness over abortion, etc. is that we've moved away from federalist ideas and have been rapidly accumulating power in D.C. With a federalist approach we could agree to disagree on some of these issues. NY and MA could be the crazy liberal wacko havens they long to be and AL, MS, and TX could go about their conservative lives.
I know it's not in the Constitution but it is in the Declaration of Independence and is therefore a part of our American tradition, just as much and perhaps even more-so than the Federalist Papers. I'm talking about the basic human rights (in the order in which it was correctly written) to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Sadly, all three have routinely been trampled upon (by our own government) since the document was written.
In my opinion, and I believe this is the opinion of the founders, the nation's government has no business interfering with these basic rights and should also protect the people from others wishing to disregard such rights.
Terry Schiavo was condemned to death by a judge simply because her husband wanted her to die and she was not able to speak up in her own defense.
Millions of unborn babies have been killed and continue to be killed because their mothers find them to be inconvenient. Again, they are unable to speak up in their own defense.
Does the federal government have the right to protect those whom others would kill simply because they are deemed inconvenient and cannot defend themselves? If it doesn't, then I suppose the founders who wrote the Declaration didn't really mean what they said.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
What was written as a call to war in 1776 is different from what was put down in cool blood as a foundation for a national government.
Besides that even, the founders didn't think that people would put fools in their state judiciary. They would say the answer lies in fixing Florida, not to use the Declaration of Independence as a means of making the Constitution a living document.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Can I then assume that I have a right to be secure in my person to not be seized without reason (such as committing a crime)? I know it may seem like a bit of a stretch, but then most of the laws based on "interstate commerce" and even some tax laws (like the ones used to outlaw cocaine and marijuana) are even MORE or a stretch.
Of course some of these topics are based on founders' intent and unfortunately they were often rather vague.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
So because Democrats are more flagrant in violating the Constitution, that gives us leave to violate it when it suits us?
Look: Florida's laws stink, but it's up to the people of Florida to fix it.
And to me 'intent' has nothing to do with it. Different people who ratified these documents surely had different intents. So what we have to go by is the text.
And well, if a judge can issue a warrant to amke a search reasonable, then a judge can issue a ruling as he did in against Schiavo, as the law stood in Florida.
We need to fight things like this at the level it belongs at: the states. After all, if we reverse Roe and successors, we're going to have 50 statewide abortion fights to deal with, you know.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
spoken quite a bit about Federalism, but gets no credit for it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle