After surveying the entire field of Presidential candidates, I made the decision several months ago to give my tentative support to the campaign of Fred Thompson. I believed Thompson to be the most electable candidate whose views aligned most closely with my own.
Now I'm not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.
Sadly, many conservatives--including it appears, Sen. Thompson--assume that federalism is an inherently conservative philosophy. It is not. In fact, federalism can be antithetical to conservatism when applied in the way that Thompson seems to champion. For instance, in an issue of the Fred Thompson Report, he wrote:
Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws.Thompson's use of the clichéd "laboratories of democracy" line is troubling. As federalism scholar Michael Greve notes, Justice Louis D. Brandeis' "famous dictum had almost nothing to do with federalism and everything to do with his commitment to scientific socialism." Indeed, the problem with Thompson's view of federalism is that it is more applicable for instituting socialism than for advancing conservative principles.
While some forms of federalism are defensible (Ramesh Ponnuru is one conservative that gets it right), I believe that it is ultimately inferior to other principles of governmental demarcation, such as subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty.
The principle of subsidiarity is an idea found in Catholic social thought that appeals to traditionalist conservatives. As the Acton Institute's David A. Bosnich defines the term,
This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom.
A related idea from the Reformed tradition (and the one to which I subscribe) is the neo-Calvinist notion of sphere sovereignty. According to the Wikipedia entry:
Sphere sovereignty is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. …Sphere sovereignty implies that no one area of life or societal community is sovereign over another. Each sphere has its own created integrity. Neo-Calvinists hold that since God created everything "after its own kind," diversity must be acknowledged and appreciated. For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence, respectively.
Unlike Federalism, where there is a part-whole relationship between the States and the Federal branch, each societal sphere is a whole unto itself. As my friend Gregory Baus explains, "not only can the other societal spheres never properly be made parts of the state, but the state (or any other sphere) can never be what creates the boundaries of sovereignty between spheres."
This view is exponentially more conservative than standard federalism. Under federalist principles the state of Massachusetts could become a socialist utopia (or dystopia) if the people of the state so choose. The state government could assume complete control all internal institutions, could even redefine all other societal spheres (marriage, schools, corporations) and refuse to recognize any institution that didn’t comply. For example, Massachusetts could redefine marriage to include only polygamous arrangements and refuse to recognize any other form. As long as the Massachusetts didn't extraterritorialize their policy decisions on other states, they would be perfectly within the bounds of federalism.
Federalism is a neutral philosophical position; it is neither conservative nor liberal. As Robert Alt once wrote in NRO article that asks, "Is Federalism Conservative?:
"Contrary to our liberal friends' assumption, federalism is not necessarily conservative. Rather, federalism is a series of constitutional rules, and as rules cut against both conservative and liberal positions alike. Yes, federalism will disappoint those who think that the only solution is a national one, but in terms of policy outcomes, federalism proves itself to be a neutral dealer."
Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven't considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.
For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.
Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of Constitutional authority. But when it is allowed to transfer power to the states from other societal spheres, the philosophy merely creates 50 separate laboratories of liberalism.
Update: I left this note in the comments section but I think it might be useful to put it here as a summary of the post. Some people seem to be misreading my intention as being completely against federalism. That is not the case. Rather I am for more checks and balances and limits on government. It says something about our movement when conservatives are defending limited government by advocating that the government (i.e., the states) be allowed an increase in unchecked power and illegitimate authority.
Here is the a brief summary of my argument:
1. Federalism is a system (at least in the US) that shares power between the federal government and state governments.
2. Federalism is neutral, it is neither liberal nor conservative.
3. However, federalism left to itself tends toward an authoritarian liberalism because it empowers government control.
4. Conservatives do not believe that the federal and state are the only institutions that have authority and/or legitimacy. We also recognize (or at least should recognize) that churches, schools, marriage, parenthood, business, etc., are legitimate societal spheres that are co-equal to the State.
5. Conservatives should recognize that appealing to federalism is insufficient since it tends to allow the State (whether the federal or the states) to wrest power away from other societal spheres.
Wow Joe, nice post. While I believe that Fred Thompson is better than Giuliani or McCain, I have the same exact reservations as you regarding his position on FMA and Schiavo. It's refreshing to see someone being objective about the candidate that they support.
I'll be objective about the guy I support too. Huckabee is somewhat of a nanny-stater (e.g. he supports a smoking ban in workspaces, with the exception of restaurants). His fiscal policies are under attack by the Club for Growth (although I believe that it is a bit hyped up). Also, he has less of a chance to get the nomination than, say, Rudy, since he has less money. But I consider him to be solid on the issues that I really care about as a believer. Huckabee could still win if he has a united evangelical base behind him. And he would be formidable against Hillary, since he has great crossover appeal: 1) a union has endorsed him, 2) 48% of African-Americans voted for him for governor, 3) he is a terrific orator.
One person's nanny is another person's champion of social standards and moral accountability, I suppose. But nannies are nannies. On whole I'd just as soon they went away. I guess that makes me not a conservative.
Joe, I think you've missed several points:
1. The Founders spoke and wrote extensively of the need for public virtue and the obligation of citizens. In addition, they also intended--and left voluminous writings--on the role of community institutions, specifically the family and church, in inculcating sound morality which served as the foundation for republican principles. I would call that intuitive understanding of sphere sovereignty.
2. One of the things dealt with in the Federalist papers was the role of the Federal and state governments. The Federal government, inherent in its structure, was to focus on national and external issues, primarily diplomacy and war. The state governments were then to focus more and social issues, possessing the appropriate powers to provide social services. Implicit in this was the understanding that state governments, being closer to the people that they governed, were more responsive to public interests and could therefore be held more accountable. Again, this would seem to show an intuitive understanding of sphere sovereignty/subsidiary.
3. Federalism exists, in part, as a sort of damage control, so that if one state happens to pass a law that has particularly disastrous effects, it won't affect other states, at least not directly. My family moved out to the Midwest in the late 90s because of the early 90s recession, exacerbated in California because of crippling regulations that drove businesses to other states, like Arizona, which actually started their laws to woo those businesses. Federal laws may have positive effects, but it opens the door for the expansion of power and later abuses which may be worse.
4. We already have system in place to amend the Constitution in cases where the general system is inadequate, which has been done.
Yes, federalism is morally neutral...when decontextualized from moral and political framework that surrounds it. If there is a serious problem with the laws in the state where a person resides, their first impulse shouldn't be to head to Capitol Hill, which so often happens. Not only are there too many national political issues on that battleground to be heard, but it is also a failure to deal with hearts and minds of voters back in the home state, where the issue is most pertinent. In the battle over abortion, I've witnessed as we Christians have expended mountains of political capital to occasionally enact laws and win court rulings which have almost no effect at all, with the real progress being made in opening private social agencies that provide adoption, parent classes, and donated baby supplies, creating a support structure for young parents who might otherwise choose abortions, a course of action that is sometimes more consistent with the loving kindness that Jesus taught. And all of this is done at the local and state level.
In short, I don't entirely with your conclusion, but there is a lot more to consider.
I'm amazed at this post. Federalism is clearly in the supreme law of the US (see "enumeration of powers", tenth amendment). As I see it, we have only two options:
1. Elect a federalist, like Thompson or Paul
2. Elect someone who will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then completely disregard that oath
Personally, I'd like to see a return to the rule of law, particularly with respect to the Constitution.
While it's true that under federalism, a state could implement a "worker's paradise," another state might implement an improved system. At least then you could move to a better state. I worry that the entire nation could become a socialist state. Then where would we go?
Aren't you talking about 2 different things?
Federalism is a form of government.
Conservatism is a philosophy.
Technically couldn't a person be a conservative federalist and another be a liberal federalist? (theoretically?)
The positive of Federalism, however, is that the states then becoming entities competing for tax dollars. Sure Massachusetts could go absolutely bonkers, but you don't have to live there (and most people probably wouldn't either), giving the incentive to move to a different state, and its very unlikely they could attract new citizens.. If it's anything a government responds quickly to, it's the loss of potential tax revenue.
As the nation has grown and the world become smaller, the less I understand the obsession with federalism as some sort of panacea. Those of us who live in somewhat backward states would benefit from a stronger national government vis-avis the state government. In the area of education, I think children and teachers would benefit from national teaching standards and tests as opposed to the bizarre patchwork system of 51 sets of standards.
Federalism is simply a new name for "states' rights," a doctrine whose origins lay largely in the desire of slave states to protect their peculiar institution from the evil national government.
Answer to Matt's question: Somalia.
This view is exponentially more conservative than standard federalism. Under federalist principles the state of Massachusetts could become a socialist utopia (or dystopia) if the people of the state so choose. The state government could assume complete control all internal institutions, could even redefine all other societal spheres (marriage, schools, corporations) and refuse to recognize any institution that didn’t comply. For example, Massachusetts could redefine marriage to include only polygamous arrangements and refuse to recognize any other form. As long as the Massachusetts didn't extraterritorialize their policy decisions on other states, they would be perfectly within the bounds of federalism.
I'm not sure I see how Joe squares this with his 'societal spheres'. If Massachusetts did adopt such an arrangement how does he figure it is the 'Federal sphere' to alter it? I'm talking about polygamous arrangements here, not a 'socialist utopia'. Under the concept of Federalism a 'socialist utopia' would probably end up violating the role of the Federal Gov't in regulating interstate commerce as well as individual rights to private property, contract etc.
Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven't considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.
Not as disheartening as seeing conservatives like Joe ditch honesty as a value. Schiavo was never denied due process of law. All sides had their day in court. Due process of law doesn't mean a guarantee that you like the result or even that the result will be perfect. In theory an innocent person, for example, could be charged with capital murder and end up getting executed and yet still receive 'due process of law'.
What "so-called conservatives" were right to be concerned about was having Congress decide not law but actual cases. This not only turns the idea of Federalism on its head but also your idea of 'societal spheres'. The political process should decide law, not actual cases which are heard by the dispassionate judicary. This isn't a new idea or even an old one but a lesson learned from many years of injustices done by Executives and Legislatures acting in a Judicial role.
For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.
I think Joe must reach certain mental states when he writes where his thought process literally shuts off and boilerplate rhetoric just spills out. The gov't never had any 'rights' it was protecting in the Schiavo case. A dispute arose and the judicial system heard the dispute and decided the matter. No one was 'sentenced to death'. Quick question, if Schiavo 'woke up' and said "give me a glass of water" or "never mind what my husband said I wanted ten years ago, I'll take the feeding tube and water" would she have been denied because the state "decided" to kill her? No. In fact if the hospital refused her they would have been charged with manslaughter.
Joe has the gaul to knock procedure but how should these cases be decided? Does everyone have to depend on Bill O'Reilly to stir up conservative activists to protect their rights in each case? The Schiavo case was an example of conservatives literally losing their minds and deepening their intellectual bankruptcy. Instead of arguing what the law should be they essentailly said "screw the law, let's just decide this one based on our passions and half-informed beliefs". Translation: screw you if you happen to end up in the hospital bed but for whatever reason Fox News doesn't notice you. It's not the first time they did that either, the warning shoudl have came inthe Elan Gonzolez case where conservatives suddenly 'forgot' for the purposes of just one single case that parents actually have a special relationship to their children.
Joe is correct that "laboratories of democracy" by itself leaves a lot to be desired. So what though? A real life lab is limited in the type of experiments it can conduct by its ethical guidelines, its budget, purpose and management. The state 'labs' are likewise limited in their experiment by the spheres Joe speaks about (which is an extension of Federalism, local gov't has its own sphere that is different from the state gov't and the individual, family, group also has their own sphere).
It doesn't make sense, though, to examine a single value ripped out of its context. We can agree honesty is a good thing but it it exists in a context of other values that complement or sometimes even oppose just pure honesty (for example, politeness, respect of confidentiality etc.). Likewise it's kind of shakey to examine a single Constitutional value abset all the other ones, especially since the constitution was built on a structure of checks and balances.
Good discussion -- Exhibit A for why I value reading your site. Ironically, your concern over Thompson is that he takes a key position (Federalism) beyond its logical balance. As I've admitted to you, I have some similar misgivings about Ron Paul. It's probably a good commentary on the fragmentation of our social fabric that in order to find candidates who advance views important to us we have to be concerned about where they take those positions in other areas. In other words, we've long lost most social consensus on the key issues of governance.
David M I would call that intuitive understanding of sphere sovereignty.
2. …Again, this would seem to show an intuitive understanding of sphere sovereignty/subsidiary.
I agree with this too, though it wasn’t just intuitive. The very concept of federalism was first developed by the Calvinist philosopher Johannes Althusius.
3….Federal laws may have positive effects, but it opens the door for the expansion of power and later abuses which may be worse.
Again, I agree. But the implicit assumption is that it is an either/or situation: either the federal government has the power or the states have the power. My view is that this is inadequate. Power and authority are distributed throughout various spheres. The conservative view is that the state's role should be as limited—if not more so—than the federal government. Because the states are closer to the individual, the have the potential to do as much harm as the federal government.
4. We already have system in place to amend the Constitution in cases where the general system is inadequate, which has been done.
Once again, I agree. But federalists often have absurd positions on Constitutional amendments. A true federalist should support all proposed amendments. After all, the only way they can pass is if the states decide to transfer power to the federal level.
If there is a serious problem with the laws in the state where a person resides, their first impulse shouldn't be to head to Capitol Hill, which so often happens.
Well, that depends. Capitol Hill or the federal courts are the proper place to turn when the individual states are stomping on people's legitimate Constitutionally protected rights.
In the battle over abortion, I've witnessed as we Christians have expended mountains of political capital to occasionally enact laws and win court rulings which have almost no effect at all,…
The same was said above slavery and desegregation and the rights of women to vote and…
And all of this is done at the local and state level.
Absolutely. Which is where sphere sovereignty comes in on the issue of abortion. Certain actions, such as providing mercy, are best left to churches and charity organization. Other actions, such as providing justice, should be left to the state and federal government. Again, this is not an either/or but an expansive "this sphere and that sphere and…etc."
Matt While it's true that under federalism, a state could implement a "worker's paradise," another state might implement an improved system. At least then you could move to a better state.
With all due respect, Matt, the "if they don't like it move to another state" is one of the worst arguments every devised to defend federalism. First of all, it is regressive and hurts the poor. What if you lack the resources to move to another locale? Or what if you are in military and forced to go where the federal government assigns you? Are you just out of luck? Second, it has the same fatal flaw that affects libertarianism, the idea that there is no "spillover" effect and that bad consequences can be contained. Third, it puts a form of government ahead of the purpose of government. The State's legitimate role is to do justice. But you're argument allows for the individual states to be as unjust as they want and as long as it is not in direct violation of the Constitution people have no recourse—expect to pack up the U-Haul and move away.
Tim Technically couldn't a person be a conservative federalist and another be a liberal federalist? (theoretically?)
Absolutely. I myself am a conservative and a federalist (rightly understood). But when required to choose between the two, I'll side with conservatism over federalism.
Boonton Schiavo was never denied due process of law. All sides had their day in court.
This is one of the reason I never bother to respond to your comments: you constantly speak without knowing what you're talking about. No matter what the subject, you have an ill-informed opinion that you're willing to share. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time doing your homework first .
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. One of these rights is to a trial by jury. Florida’s own Supreme B.J.Y., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. M.A., Respondent/Appellee. [April 29, 1993] determined that the protection of a jury is a vital part of Florida’s due process and “…is not to be narrowly construed.”
In the Schiavo case, Terri's rights were violated and were done so with impunity. In fact, if she had been charged with murder it would have been much harder for them to put her to death.
"The conservative view is that the state's role should be as limited—if not more so—than the federal government. Because the states are closer to the individual, the have the potential to do as much harm as the federal government."
That's backwards to the 'conservative' view of government I grew up with. That view holds that greater power should reside at the state and local level, where the individual can best keep a close eye on and interact with it. It's a lot easier (in most cases) to express your displeasure in person with local policy than it is with a one-size-fits-all dictate from Washington D.C.
No matter what the subject, you have an ill-informed opinion that you're willing to share. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time doing your homework first .
I did back when Schiavo was news. Many of us had too because your side was happy to make up its own facts as it went along.
In the Schiavo case, Terri's rights were violated and were done so with impunity. In fact, if she had been charged with murder it would have been much harder for them to put her to death.
OK, I'm going to guess the right you're talking about is trial by jury as per your previous statement:
One of these rights is to a trial by jury. Florida’s own Supreme B.J.Y., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. M.A., Respondent/Appellee. [April 29, 1993] determined that the protection of a jury is a vital part of Florida’s due process and “…is not to be narrowly construed.”
This is what you're talking about when you say do your homework?!
Schiavo was not sentenced to death. As I pointed out if she 'woke up' and clearly indicated she wanted or didn't want medical treatment, feeding tubes etc her wishes would be honored and if not her caregivers could be charged witha crime. You operate in a fantasy world where the court case was about whether or not Schiavo could live when it in fact was about who decides what types of treatments she could get.
Now a person does indeed have a right to refuse life saving treatments. They even have a right to refuse food and water (let alone food and water delievered by tube). There is no clear right to suicide, though. So while a person may refuse food and water they cannot insist on being poisened or given access to a 'suicide machine' etc.
The 'due process' issue, then, has nothing to do with trial by jury which only applies to cases where the state is charging someone with a crime. In that case your wishes mean nothing. If you're on death row for murder "I don't wish to be killed" is not a legal argument. The issue was absent her ability to communicate was her husband fit to communicate on her behalf and what wishes of hers could be determined? That is the due process she received. Perhaps you think the decision derived was not correct. I don't think the decision in the OJ trial was correct but that alone does not mean anyone was deprived due process.
Are non-criminal decisions like this life and death? Sure but they arise in numerous ways. Suppose her husband wanted her to have an experimental treatment that may have improved her condition but also carried a high risk of death. Suppose her parents felt the risk of death was too high. The courts have to hear such cases too and their calls may be 'bad' in that they result in something the person wouldn't have wanted if they had the ability to communicate or had perfect knowledge. BUT that doesn't alter the fact that the 'sphere' that determines these disputes is the JUDICIAL one and the 'sphere' that writes the general rules is the LEGISLATIVE one.
This is why I harp on the intellectual bankruptcy of the right. It's quite fun to be self-righteous, to jump up and down on the latest cursade to "save Terry" or "fire the radical professor" or whatever the latest tabloid headline is. That doesn't mean you're contributing to anything positive, though. At the end of the day Terry is still dead and for all you know there are a thousand people dying in hospitals either justly or not but they are off your radar screen. The distinctions between these spheres are not there as 'procedures' to be written away whenever you find them an obstical. They are there because long and hard experience has demonstrated things are worse without them no matter what 'common sense' might say.
Jemison That's backwards to the 'conservative' view of government I grew up with. That view holds that greater power should reside at the state and local level, where the individual can best keep a close eye on and interact with it.
Keep in mind that I'm advocating a stricter view than the rather loose standard of federalism. My point is not that the Federal government should have less restrictions than the states but rather that the states need such restrictions as much as if not more than the Feds because they are given more latitude. Only local governments—since they really are in direct contact with the people—need fewer restrictions (though they should not interfere with other societal spheres).
It's a lot easier (in most cases) to express your displeasure in person with local policy than it is with a one-size-fits-all dictate from Washington D.C.
This is another problem with the popular view of federalism. In the days of the Founders it was indeed easer to express displeasure with a state policy. But today even the state governments are larger than the entire federal bureaucracy was at the time of the founding. Say, for example, you live in California. You are as unlikely to get a grievance fixed in Sacramento as you are in D.C.
This is the reason why I say that pushing the issues down to the states is often no enough. The states simply don't have the true authority in most cases. They shouldn’t be delegated power that they are not entitled to have – and that the federal level doesn’t have the authority to give.
Absolutely. I myself am a conservative and a federalist (rightly understood). But when required to choose between the two, I'll side with conservatism over federalism.
Rightly understood conservativism is a respect for past tradition and a reluctance to change (but not an unwillingness to change at all...which might be called reactionary). I think it's kind of paradoxical to even assert that a choice is even possible. It's kind of like saying "I respect honesty and I oppose committing fraud in business dealings but when required to choose between the two...."
Federalism rightly understood is not 'states rights' or even "states should have more power, the federal gov't less". It's a value in our Constitution that needs to be read in context of the other values that both complement and compete with it.
This is the reason why I say that pushing the issues down to the states is often no enough. The states simply don't have the true authority in most cases. They shouldn’t be delegated power that they are not entitled to have – and that the federal level doesn’t have the authority to give.
Except, of course, if a state decided to recognize polygamy or establish 'workers paradise'....then all in the sudden you would have the Federal gov't come out of the closet and demonstrate that it was all a game?
You're not really being specific here. Yes state gov't is 'bigger' today than two hundred years ago. As you pointed out to the Ron Paul supporters, though, we are a different people than we were two hundred years ago. There are more of us, we live in a complicated modern economy etc.
The only examples you gave was a state recognizing 'only' polygamy...which is kind of hard to see the authority issue because states have just about always recognized marriage in one form or another if only for record keeping and civil purposes. The state 'forcing' people into such oddball relationships...which no one has done but if they did would almost certainly violate well recognized privacy rights as well as individual freedom. And a 'workers paradise' state which seems pretty much unimaginable because property cannot be taken without compensation, private contracts cannot be voided AND considering how interstate commerce is so heavily intregrated into modern life I'd like to see how a state could pull off such a thing AND keep it contained just inside itself so as not to step on the Federal sphere.
It sounds like your examples are really just horror cases where authority is used in a stupid manner (where it actually is about authority). But that's part and parcel of authority isn't it? You have a right to spend your money as you please, within limits. Yes you may blow a month's paycheck in one day at the go-go bar. That doesn't mean you really don't have authority over your money, though. It means there's a risk you can be stupid. While there's some limits we can place on our 'right to be stupid' it more or less is something we have to live with. California may indeed pass laws you find objectionable but if you're not a citizen there you have a duty to respect their rights to do so just as you respect your neighbor's right to skimp on his 401K and blow his paycheck on silly consumption. Even if you are a citizen there you have a duty to respect the decisions of the process...in other words after the votes are counted if your side lost then it lost. This all must be taken in its proper context...of course.
Since your trackback script seems to be broken, here is my response. Your trackback problem is easy to fix, Joe. You just need to rename mt-tb.cgi to something else, then set the TrackbackScript directive in mt-config.cgi. It would look something like
TrackbackScript mt-tbnospam.cgi
in the config file. The reason your script is broken is that Hosting Matters by default blocks any file named mt-tb.cgi from executing because it is an easy target for spammers. So, they block it to save resources from having their database servers hit constantly by spammers.
Federalism is a relic of the by-gone era of horses and buggies. It became obsolete with the arrival of the railroad and absurd with the advent of the telegraph, telephone, combustion engine, airplane, interstate highway, satellite communication, television, and internet. California alone in 2007 has twenty times the population of all thirteen original states in 1776.
What has federalism brought us? For one, the Civil War. Without the notion of federalism, we could have peacefully abolished slavery like every other country in the world. Even after we ended slavery, federalism enabled southern states to practice segregation, discrimination and disenfranchisement. Federalism enables backward states with corrupt politicians from giving freedoms that are demanded when laws and policies are subjected to national debate.
Federalism also gave us the Senate and the ridiculous practice of giving the 400,000 people in Wyoming the same number of senators as the 40 million people of California. The Senate's entire function is to block the will of the majority as expressed in the House of Representatives.
We can also thank federalism for the inane electoral college. Remember the 2000 election anyone? Federalism then gave us inconsistent forms of voting, said that the winner of the popular vote was really the loser and allowed 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court to pick the president. We would probably invade a foreign country that had such an idiotic system.
As for keeping an eye on things, in the age of C-SPAN and the internet, I know 10 times more about what is happening in Congress than I do in my state's legislature, and 100 times more than what is happening in the county Quorum Court or city council meetings.
Let's look at Britain for a moment. For the time being, let's set aside Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and focus on England, where the vast majority of UK citizens live. There is no federal system in England. Parliament makes all the laws, even the most important city laws. How has this lack of federalism hurt England? Please give specific examples.
One more thing - without federalism we wouldn't have had Roe v. Wade because abortion laws would be made on a national level, not state by state.
Also, we probably wouldn't have regressive grocery taxes in several states (including the one I live in), anti-evolution laws, so much regulatory and tax confusion, legal cockfighting in the US, etc.
"Now I'm not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order. "
It would be more correct to refer to yourself as a social conservative Joe. "Conservatism" as you describe it is radicalism.
Joe's wishes are pretty simple really. He wants everybody in the United States to comply with what he thinks is right or wrong regardless of any objection from any vector. Whether its from the states or the federal government or even from the private lives of the public, it matters not in the slightest. He wants everybody to do things his way. So if he can get that through judicial activism, fine. State referendum? No problem. All-encompassing Federal statute? Go for it.
Joe's piece above is pretty much just a rationalization bubble to excuse tyrannical tendencies.
Patrick Joe's piece above is pretty much just a rationalization bubble to excuse tyrannical tendencies.
I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved yet, Patrick, so let me give the dumbed down version:
1. Federalism is a system (at least in the US) that shares power between the federal government and state governments.
2. Federalism is neutral, it is neither liberal nor conservative.
3. However, federalism left to itself tends toward an authoritarian liberalism because it empowers government control.
4. Conservatives do not believe that the federal and state are the only institutions that have authority and/or legitimacy. We also recognize (or at least should recognize) that churches, schools, marriage, parenthood, business, etc., are legitimate societal spheres that are co-equal to the State.
5. Conservatives should recognize that appealing to federalism is insufficient since it tends to allow the State (whether the federal or the states) to wrest power away from other societal spheres.
I hope that clears it up for you. I'm sure you won't like this concept since it leaves no room for the state to redefine another institution (i.e., marriage) but this is, in my opinion, the true conservative position.
I think you are exactly right, Patrick. The sad truth is that folks on both the right and left are inconsistent on this issue. Each side likes federalism when it suits their bigger ideological concerns. Conservatives are only too happy to abandon federalism if and when the national government enforces their agenda on marriage, abortion, marijuana, immigration, education etc.
"We also recognize (or at least should recognize) that churches, schools, marriage, parenthood, business, etc., are legitimate societal spheres that are co-equal to the State."
Utter nonsense. The state can regulate businesses, schools, marriage, parenthood and even churches to an extent (churches must obey building codes, for instance). None of those institutions has the least right to tell the state what to do.
5. Conservatives should recognize that appealing to federalism is insufficient since it tends to allow the State (whether the federal or the states) to wrest power away from other societal spheres.
I'm still trying to grasp what this had to do with the Schiavo case? Settling a dispute over medical decisions for someone who cannot communicate is clearly a judicial function and that almost always is an area of state jurisdiction. I'm unclear what this has to do with a state recognizing only polygamous marriages since recognizing marriage has pretty much always been a matter of state law. I suppose Joe has a point that should a state pass a law ordering people to engage in polygamy Federalism by itself would have little to say about it as would a 'workers utopia'. But then again a host of other constitutional values would come into play so what's the point again?
ex-,
As it applies to state's rights you have some points but it isn't really sensible to ditch Federalism. Most of your day to day gov't interaction is with the state gov't. Your drivers license, many banking, business, marriage laws, divorce laws, etc. Need to sue someone? You will probably do it in a state court.
I don't think it would be very sensible to transfer all these functions to the Fed. gov't. While you may not care or pay much attention to, say, snow plowing or road construction in your state the people that do would have an easier time addressing a state or county capital than a DC agency. Quite frankly I don't think the Fed. gov't woudl even want the responsibilities of the state gov'ts.
Some of the positives you talk about like min. education standards can be done without abolishing Federalism.
Actually, I don't deal with the state government to get my license, but rather the DMV office. The DMV office could just as easily be run by federal employees. It seems to me it would make sense to have a national driver's license. This would avoid the problem of people who maintain multiple licenses in various states - a common practice among truck drivers. My Dad even did that for a very long time.
It certainly makes sense to have city, county and state administrative units, but why not have the general policies set on a national scale? Do we really need a different policy in every state for everything from insurance regulations and bottle returns?
Can you show me how Britain has suffered by not having federalism?
I don't really know enough about Britain's system to comment. I suspect that while they don't have states in the sense we do they do have a level of gov't below Parliment.
I'm not sure your idea would be all that great. I think there's value in having some of these issues decided locally. Some issues like what age a person should be able to be licensed or the speed limit are the type of things that one size will never fit all. Why should Wyoming have the same driving laws as New York or New Jersey? If not why would a Fed. agency be able to do a better job at writing customized rules for each state/area/region whatever?
ex-preacher,
Most of your complaints seem to be along the lines of "I don't like the way they do x, y, and z in these states. Therefore the Feds should do it all." Why do I care that in Michigan school can't start until after Labor Day? The people of Michigan decided that and if it suits them that is fine by me. In a shock, I mostly agree with Boonton.
Joe's last post clears up what he was intending. It makes much more sense the way he stated it.
But you're argument allows for the individual states to be as unjust as they want and as long as it is not in direct violation of the Constitution people have no recourse—expect to pack up the U-Haul and move away.
I really don't think my argument is such a bad one. I admit, it's far from ideal, but I'm not sure there is an ideal.
My major problem with your position is that you seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the federal government will be good, and keep the states in line. My worry is that the federal government will be as unjust as they want to be, even if it's unconstitutional, and we'll have no recourse--except to pack the U-Haul and skip the country.
I'm sure that if the states gain primacy in government, some would go off the deep end quickly and get really bad. My hope is that such things would at least be educational and provide *some* containment, even if it's not all we would wish for.
Is federalism regressive? Perhaps, but I think it's less regressive than nationalism. I could perhaps afford to move to another state. I have no idea how I'd make it out of the country if the fedgov goes bad.
As a side note, I've noticed that some people have a strange idea that governments that serve larger groups of people are morally superior to those that serve smaller groups. They seem to think, for instance, that the U.N. is morally superior to the U.S. and that the fedgov is superior to the states. That makes no sense to me.
Joe says:
"5. Conservatives should recognize that appealing to federalism is insufficient since it tends to allow the State (whether the federal or the states) to wrest power away from other societal spheres.
I hope that clears it up for you. I'm sure you won't like this concept since it leaves no room for the state to redefine another institution (i.e., marriage) but this is, in my opinion, the true conservative position. "
So argues Joe, who wants a federal Constitutional Amendment to... you guessed it, re-define marriage. (not-withstanding that Amendments are ratified by the states anyway).
You illustrate my point quite neatly. You twist your logic to suit your end purpose. For you any sphere is just a means to an end so long as you get what you want. Its a tyrannical goal.
If you really want to stand by your argument Joe, then you need to come out against both the Federal Constitutional Amendment and State-defined definitions of marriage, whether pro or against same-sex marriage, its the only way you can be logically consistent. Not to mention morally consistent.
Two words: Mike Huckabeee. Perfect? No. Best candidate? Yes. I say its way too early to think he doesn't have a shot.
(1) Federal government controls people
(2) State governments controls people
(3) Federal government controls state governments
(4) State governments controls federal government
(5) People control state government
(6) People control federal government
Modern liberalism greatly emphasizes (1)(2) and (3), tacitly downplays (5) and (6), and rejects (4) as anacronistic and dangerous.
Thompson's "Frederalism" downplays (1), is ambiguous or neutral about (2), emphasizes (5) and (6), wants to revive (4)(e.g. repeal of 17th Amendment), and considers (3) unconstitutional and dangerous (e.g. Printz v. U.S.).
It's (2) that's the sticking point and the measure of a true libertarian. Thompson needs to say that his federalism will mean less overall government from the states, and (3) will be used to keep states from harming its people: Federal government controls state governments controlling people. Otherwise, Federalism is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Amistad.
We live within the framework of Liberal government.
The irony here is that the modern liberal rejects the self government of federalism in favor of a stronger central government and the "conservative" rejects it in favor of the liberal principle of personal liberty (in this discussion, the life of Terri Schiavo). I wonder -- who's the real Liberal here?
Also ...
3. However, federalism left to itself tends toward an authoritarian liberalism because it empowers government control.
I wonder ... doesn't the 10th Amendment temper federalism adequately?
...
Ex-P,
England is the size of Alabama. Their relatively small size affects their need for distributed government.
4. Conservatives do not believe that the federal and state are the only institutions that have authority and/or legitimacy. We also recognize (or at least should recognize) that churches, schools, marriage, parenthood, business, etc., are legitimate societal spheres that are co-equal to the State.
Social conservatives, however, seem to want the government, either Federal or State, to exercise control over marriage, parenthood, etc so that those "co-equal" spheres conform to their particular understanding of those other social institutions.
Taken at face value, Joe's argument above sounds positively libertarian. If churches and other religious/social institutions are co-equal with the state, then the government, State or Federal, should have no business deciding whether or not a marriage could involve two men or one man and several women. That's the role of the churches (including liberal ones that support gay marriage and fundamentalist mormon ones that favor polygamy). The legitimate power of government could include tax breaks to marriages and enforcement of laws against coersion and fraud, but it wouldn't include defining a "true" marriage. The government would be overstepping its legitimate boundaries if it discriminated against a subset of marriages if they are legitimized by one of the co-equal institutions.
Anyway, that seems to me the most straightforward reading of Joe's "societal spheres argument," but I don't think that's what social conservatives want. They want something more like Animal Farm: Societal spheres are co-equal, but some (specifically the ones most likely to conform to conservative demands) are more equal than others.
ex-preacher,
How has Britain suffered? It is steadily moving toward disintegration because of rising Scottish and English nationalism. The reason the nationalist parties are winning is because there is no choice of federalism. Most of what matters to either party can only be done in such a way that it affects the entire country.
Granted, if you actually think that Britain is still a good standard to judge by, that implies one of two things. Either you know little about the current state of civil liberties and crime in Britain (hint: it's a police state compared to the United States), or you actually want America to become like Britain under the Labor government.
Switzerland, another federation, has functioned quite well for the 200 or so years that it has been a federation. Their federal government is very weak compared to ours, and they just so happen to enjoy one of the cleanest, freest and most productive systems in the world. They are a true model among countries for how government can be done effectively, making Britain look like a joke.
So why don't you ask how France has been harmed by a totally centralized system? Just look at their economy and crime problems and get back to me...
Nick Social conservatives, however, seem to want the government, either Federal or State, to exercise control over marriage, parenthood, etc so that those "co-equal" spheres conform to their particular understanding of those other social institutions.
More on this later in my comment.
Taken at face value, Joe's argument above sounds positively libertarian.
[shudder] Perish the thought. ; )
If churches and other religious/social institutions are co-equal with the state,…
Let me clarify that point because my use of the word "co-equal" can be misleading. I am saying that societal spheres are "non-hierarchical" but that does not mean they are all equally authoritative. It's like when I was a young sergeant in the Marine Corps. At times I would hold a position or billet that would put me in charge of other sergeants. We were "co-equal" because of our rank but I had a more authoritative position because of my billet.
…then the government, State or Federal, should have no business deciding whether or not a marriage could involve two men or one man and several women. That's the role of the churches (including liberal ones that support gay marriage and fundamentalist mormon ones that favor polygamy).
Actually, this is a misunderstanding of the societal spheres concept. Not only does the state not have the authority to redefine marriage, the church doesn't have that authority either. Marriage is a separate institution—it is not created or defined by the church (it came into existence long before the church did).
Marriage is what it is—an institution that, at its core, is the joining of a man and a women into a one-flesh union. Just as the institution of marriage cannot redefine "church" or "state", the church and state cannot redefine marriage. What they can legitimately do is to determine under what conditions they will agree to recognize the other institution and its authority. It's similar to the way that nation-states "recognize" (or not in some cases) other nations.
The legitimate power of government could include tax breaks to marriages and enforcement of laws against coercion and fraud, but it wouldn't include defining a "true" marriage. The government would be overstepping its legitimate boundaries if it discriminated against a subset of marriages if they are legitimized by one of the co-equal institutions.
I agree with your point with one exception. There are no "subsets" of marriage. It is a singular institution and because of its natural structure cannot "redefine" itself. Therefore, while other institutions may try to legitimize certain arrangements by calling them "marriage", it does not change that fact that doing so is fraudulent.
The purpose of the marriage amendment is to prevent the federal government (which is nothing more than a proxy for the people) from being forced to recognize this fraud.
Also, keep in mind that we are a representative democracy. Talking about social conservatives "forcing" people simply because they are expressing their legitimate obligations to shape the law in the way that corresponds to their political beliefs is a bit much.
I'll agree that so-cons should not try to give another sphere power or authority that it does not or should not legitimately possess. But that does not mean that we should ignore our obligations to do what is legitimate, particularly when it comes from radical restructuring movements like the same-sex marriage initiative.
Joe,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me then, that social conservatism, in a nation containing multiple religions and social groups is either doomed to failure or a recipe for civil strife. Marriage may well be a singular institution defined by God, but as a practical matter, different religious groups within our society disagree on the specifics. If you use the power of democracy to ensure that the government enforces one particular understanding of a societal sphere, then you are, in practice, making the government dominant over that sphere.
A social conservative approach seems much more likely to result in the government corrupting and controlling the church. A libertarian approach, or even a radical separation from the state like the anabaptists, seems much more likely to allow the church to operate as a co-equal sphere.
Also, keep in mind that we are a representative democracy. Talking about social conservatives "forcing" people simply because they are expressing their legitimate obligations to shape the law in the way that corresponds to their political beliefs is a bit much.
We are not just a representative democracy, and one of the legitimate roles of our federal and state governments is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Voting is one of our responsibilities in the government sphere, but if the societal spheres are really co-equal, then the way we vote in the government sphere should not determine how the other societal spheres function. In our mixed society, there can be no single definition of societal spheres like Marriage, parenthood, and the church, unless it is dictated by a government which is usurping power from the other spheres.
FWIW, historically, members of my church were murdered and driven from their homes by the government when members of other Christian denominations used government power to control and define what was acceptable practice in the societal sphere of the Church. They came to the New World, because here the government and the other churches did not over-reach in that way.
MikeT:
It is steadily moving toward disintegration because of rising Scottish and English nationalism.
Minor nitpick: Scottish and Welsh nationalism, not Scottish and English. IIRC, due to the historic dominance of England in the British Isles, English people are much more likely than Scots or Welsh people to view themselves as British.
Joe
Marriage is a separate institution—it is not created or defined by the church (it came into existence long before the church did).
One further comment: I think your description of marriage as an independent institution ignores the extent to which marriage and other institutions are dependent on interpretation by people who disagree. Whatever their ultimate origins, these institutions do not operate outside of our fallible interpretation, so the equally fallible government is incapable of reliably distinguishing true institutions from counterfeits.
Having the government, democratic or not, define what is and is not a true marriage is rather like having the government define what is or is not a true baptism or correct practice of the Lord's Supper. Governments have done that. The results were not pleasant.
I think there are two solutions: Have the government recognize equally all marriages that different factions in other societal spheres consider legitimate. Or, have the government ignore equally all marriages.
This conversation reveals the spectrum of choices under Federalism.It appears that most of you actually approve of federalism, but disagree with what others would do within federalism.
The trouble with disputing
"federalism" is that its history and moderating - stalling - effects are powerful tools when we're talking to libertarians, and some of our social liberals.
(This week, I spoke to a CMDA doc
who thought that he's a conservative. However, his idea of a "compromise" on repealing the Hyde amendment would be to limit federal funds to the first 12 weeks. He's big on nationalized health,
too.)
If marriage exists as a seperate sphere from the state then the FMA is irrelevant. Since the state cannot redefine marriage you cannot protect marriage by altering what the state does or does not recognize.
It sounds a little bit like 'helping' the people in some distant foreign land with an oppressive gov't by passing a resolution declaring that this country does not 'recognize' that gov't. Whether or not tht gov't is recognized three thousand miles away does little to alter the fact that the police and soldiers in that land work for the supposedly non-existant gov't.
I agree with your point with one exception. There are no "subsets" of marriage. It is a singular institution and because of its natural structure cannot "redefine" itself. Therefore, while other institutions may try to legitimize certain arrangements by calling them "marriage", it does not change that fact that doing so is fraudulent.
A fraud must have a victim and you can identify none in this case. A certain Church, Joe, says you are not married because (from what I understand) you once got divorced and are now married to another woman. This certain Church would consider your marriage a fraud. Well maybe they would be more diplomatic but pushed against the wall that is what their theology says. But who was defrauded? You knew you didn't get married in t his Church, you knew you didn't subscribe to this Church's reading of the nature of marriage. Perhaps you are wrong or perhaps you are right but you can't really say you were defrauded or tricked into believing your marriage was valid per the reasoning of this certain major Church.
Which is why the FMA is wrong. By your definitions a state can give what you would consider non-marriages the legal rights of the married just as the State Dept. can recognize Vatican City as a 'nation'. You seem to stand the definitions on their head. Marriage is a seperate sphere from the state until it comes to marriages you don't want to recognize, then the state must act. But not only must the state act, it must be the Federal Gov't which up do now had no authority over marriage. Now even the States themselves are not to be trusted.
If it is your assertion that marriage exists as a seperate sphere than the state then you cannot define marriage through the state's authority. Things like inheritance, making medical decisions, various spousal perogratives etc. are state functions. When, for example, a person cannot make medical decisions for themselves the state must arbitrate who will fill that role. While the state may 'recognize' marriage in the sense that it automatically grants spouses that right just as it recognizes families in that it grants parents that right (with minors) that doesn't make the marriage anymore than the state dept. granting diplomatic status to a person makes a nation appear on the other side of the world. If the nation disappears or never even exists the person may keep his diplomatic status because we are talking about two spheres.
In other words, the state regulates civil marriage but it does not regulate what we may call Marriage. Joe's confusing us here by showing us two balls, one Marriage and the other state and juggling them around so we get confused as to which is which. The state's civil marriage may sometimes mirror Marriage like a lake mirrors the moon but the two do not need to be connected. A Catholic citizen, for example, can recognize that a man's current civil wife inherits his wealth or may make medical decisions on his behalf BUT she is not being forced to recognize this relationship as a Marriage. She may very well feel the man is truely Married to his first wife regardless of his Civil arrangements.
Collin,
Your point had relevance in 1800 when it took days or weeks to walk across Alabama or England. It has little to no relevance today when one can travel thousands of miles in hours or communicate instantly via telephone, television, internet and satellite.
MikeT,
I specifically confined this to discussion of England alone (not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). The last time I checked, the crime rates - especially murder rates - in England and France are far lower than those in the U.S (especially in the crime-ridden Bible Belt). This even though they incarcerate far fewer people. That brings us to the police state. I had no idea that Britain was a police state. Please tell me how you define "police state."
Joe,
Did you see your typo? "Marriage is what it is—an institution that, at its core, is the joining of a man and a women into a one-flesh union." A man and a women? You're right, Joe, polygamy was the norm for thousands of years. How dare we redefine it as monogamy? For shame, for shame. If your bizarre "separate spheres" argument and even more bizarre "separate billet" analogy hold any merit, than the government, whether local, state or federal should have no say about marriage.
Hmm... how about having "subjects" instead of citizens, outlawing guns, prior restraint against the press.......... . . . . .
No thank you.
Hmm... how about having "subjects" instead of citizens, outlawing guns, prior restraint against the press.......... . . . . .
No thank you.
ex-,
I would resort to general conservatism. I'm not sure what England's gov't is like but it seems to work for them, in general. It developed that way over the course of centuries. Likewise our gov't has developed as it has for centuries and does seem to work.
As you recognize there are places where performance could be better but there's a lot, a real lot, of places where performance can get really bad. Just like in the previous thread on the gold standard, it is not sufficient to point to a few potential benefits. The justification for a radical overhaul needs to be really compelling. I think ditching Federalism leaves too much room to break stuff. Perhaps we could just import England's model without a hitch but I think there's good reasons to be skeptical.
If your bizarre "separate spheres" argument and even more bizarre "separate billet" analogy hold any merit, than the government, whether local, state or federal should have no say about marriage.
His sphere argument isn't that strange, it's just that he doesn't realize it causes his FMA argument to self destruct. Basically all he seems to be saying is that there are different areas in life where different types of authority applies. For example, when you're a kid your mom and dad tell you when to go to bed. As far as going to bed is concerned your mom & dad are the rulers, that's their sphere so to speak. He is saying sphere's are equal. So it's not like the Federal Gov't in Washington is a higher authority than your mom & dad, they are just a seperate sphere. Mommy and daddy rule the bedtime sphere and the IRS rules the "can I use accelerated depreciation on this?" shere. The Fed Gov't, say, is the 'ruler' as far as your income tax is concerned but has nothing to do with your mom & dad telling you to go to bed. Likewise there's seperate spheres for the states, local gov'ts, the local book club and so on.
His argument self-destructs when he tries to then justify the FMA after arguing that Marriage is its own sphere. In that light the FMA is as absurd as an amendment saying children shall obey the bedtime set by their parents. Such an amendment wouldn't just be unenforcable, it would be absurd. Parents, children, and bedtime simply do not exist in the Federal Constitution sphere.
Likewise what Joe talks about with Marriage, a physical, emotional, spirtual bond etc. between a man and woman does not exist in the government spheres. Your marriage license is nothing more than an element in the civil sphere that happens to have the same name as Marriage. If you get married by the Justice of the Peace but never engage in a physical, emotional, spirtual etc. bond with your spouse you are not engaging in Marriage but you are in a civil marriage. Since Marriage exists as its own sphere it is not the job of the state to decide who is in it or out of it. Imagine a state tried to install "Marriage examiners" that would go around interviewing married couples and dissolving marriages they felt did not have true love. Such an absurdity would be laughed at (as well as challenged on probably a half-dozen Constitutional fronts). Yet no one here would dare claim that love wasn't an essential element of marriage.
So now that we are clear on the spheres it is easy to see the problem with the FMA. It has nothing to do with Marriage and everything to do with overturning the state's proper sphere in civil marriage law and not only giving it to the Federal Gov't but also freezing in a civil marriage policy that would be immune to democratic change barring a supermajority.
I think the separate spheres argument is bizarre because it is blind to reality. I'll stick with your parental authority analogy. Let's say that mom and dad decide to torture their child. Does the state have no authority to intervene? What if they take their kids out of school and provide no alternate education? What if they deny medical treatment to their kids?
To pretend that families, marriages, businesses, etc. are someone separate from society and cannot be regulated by the state is to live in a fantasy land.
To pretend that a state government is equal in authority to the federal government is to ignore McCullough v. Maryland, the Civil War, and the Little Rock Crisis.
Certainly, there are spheres where these various entities operate, but they are not independent of state regulation and they are clearly not equal in authority when the two collide.
I'll stick with your parental authority analogy. Let's say that mom and dad decide to torture their child. Does the state have no authority to intervene? What if they take their kids out of school and provide no alternate education? What if they deny medical treatment to their kids?
Then they would be stepping outside their sphere into one that the state has jurisdiction over. The state could intervene if they were being abusive but it couldn't intervene just to make their bedtime 10PM EVEN IF you could show a 8PM bedtime was unfair!
Likewise this is NOT an area where the Federal Government would normally be able to intervene except if unusual circumstances were taken place where the Fed. gov't and not the states would have jurisdiction (say on an army base, maybe in an embassy?)
To pretend that families, marriages, businesses, etc. are someone separate from society and cannot be regulated by the state is to live in a fantasy land.
They can but only to the degree that such regulation is inside the state's sphere. Abuse would be but not bedtimes unless you could show in a particular case a bedtime was abusive in some manner. Likewise there's a limit on business regulation. Maybe it's pretty extensive but even there the state can't micromanage every business.
To pretend that a state government is equal in authority to the federal government is to ignore McCullough v. Maryland, the Civil War, and the Little Rock Crisis.
There are areas where the state has authority, where the Federal gov't has authority and areas where they share authority. In the Little Rock Crisis, for example, the state did not have the authority to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I believe one state, though, responded by closing ALL public schools. While the Federal Gov't could force integration it couldn't force the state to provide public schools.
This is off-tangent.
I have a question to ask (I got this from a black conservative website).
It is not that black Americans are incapable of understanding the principle of limited government, it's that our country has a long, and terrible record of applying the principal of limited government to black Americans.
...........................
How could conservatives ever hope to transmit the conservative idea of limited government to African American voters, whose historical advances in this society have been accompanied at every major turn by the presence of the Federal government and its various forms of interventionist liberalism?
How do you transmit the principle of limited government to people who have known anything but?
I would love to hear your suggestions on this. All black conservatives grapple with this problem.
The comments on this faux respect for federalism remind me of similar faux statements "respecting" freedom of speech. There are lots of people who
believe in freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend *them* too badly. Then, of course, it becomes
a form of "violence" or "obscene" or "hate speech" or whatever it takes to suppress it.
Similarly, everybody on the right seems to be a fan of "federalism" except when it comes to issues that they care about. Then, all of a sudden, the federal
government is where it's at.
Federalism *is* a conservative value, a value of *political" not *social" conservatives. Social conservatives seem to want to pretend they are the
only real conservatives, but they are not.
Federalism is important because it is the only way to allow any freedom in sparsely populated areas. Without
it, there's no reason to bother with anybody in states like Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, etc. having a vote. People
should be allowed to govern themselves, and that means having governmental power pushed as locally as possible.
Like any liberty, however, that sometimes means that you have to allow people to make decisions you don't
agree with and live their lives in a way you don't approve of. That kind of liberty is one that statists,
whether they are socially conservative or liberal, cannot abide with.
Carter claims conservativism trumps federalism. His critique boils down to the simple proposition that he's not a federalism, and thus disagrees with federalism.
(1) Federal government controls people
(2) State governments controls people
(3) Federal government controls state governments
(4) State governments controls federal government
(5) People control state government
(6) People control federal government
Modern liberalism greatly emphasizes (1)(2) and (3), tacitly downplays (5) and (6), and rejects (4) as anacronistic and dangerous.
Thompson's "Frederalism" downplays (1), is ambiguous or neutral about (2), emphasizes (5) and (6), wants to revive (4)(e.g. repeal of 17th Amendment), and considers (3) unconstitutional and dangerous (e.g. Printz v. U.S.).
It's (2) that's the sticking point and the measure of a true libertarian. Thompson needs to say that his federalism will mean less overall government from the states, and (3) will be used to keep states from harming its people: Federal government controls state governments controlling people. Otherwise, Federalism is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Amistad.
Check out the hit piece on Fred Thompson, including a few things the media never talks about. To read it go to thirdrailradio.blogspot.com
I'm not a federalist booster, but I've noticed that social conservatives will promote federalism when it suits their values and decry it when it doesn't.
I think the most ridiculous application of federal principles by social conservatives is in regards to the First Amendmentte establishment and free exercise clauses. As popularly understood it protects religious freedom, but what it was intended at it's inception was to prevent Congress from making a national establishment of religion, but allowing states to make their own establishments of state churches, and denying religious freedom as they saw fit within their own state territories. Applying the no establishment clause to the states was the only way to truly ensure that freedom of religion was a right of all Americans. What does it matter to someone whose religious liberty was denied by state laws that his liberty was not being infringed at the national level?
Yet religious conservatives, under the cry of religious liberty, continue to protest this as a usurpation of state powers by an activist court. How is religious liberty served by allowing local governments to dictate what prayers schoolchildren will recite?
One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven't considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.
Joe's rhetoric demonstrates why the social conservatives were so out of step with the American people with respect to the Schiavo affair. The Florida state court was not mandating involuntary euthanasia, it was adjudicating Terri Schiavo's will, as represented by her husband Michael, regarding her wishes in the event that she devolve into a persistent vegetative state. The great majority of the nation got this. Where social conservatives saw a murderous state executing innocent, helpless citizens, most Americans saw in the overreach of the conserbatives an intrusive state forcing its own religious preferences onto the private, personal life and death decisions of people like them. That Terry Schiavo would have told her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a state didn't strike ordinary Americans as bizarre or farfetched. Ordinary people thought "of course, pull the plug. That's what I would want. I don't want to live like that!"
The outcome of the Schiavo affair wasn't a popular call for laws to protect future Terry Schiavo's it was a rush by many thousands of people to prepare living wills.
Your list of spheres leaves out one very important spheres: the individual sphere. Until you sc's get a grip on the importance and proper sovereignty of that sphere, you won't be very successful at the democracy game.
Good point. The Schiavo fiasco demonstrated not that the right is about protecting this system of spheres but is the movement to shatter them. Notice what was demanded? Not a law saying feeding tubes could not be refused. Not even a law saying a feeding tube could only be refused by the actual person who needs it. No a special law that applied to just one particular case, Terry Schiavo, that was basically an attempt to second guess the state judicial system. Likewise the right did the same thing years earlier with Elián González. When you don't like the result of the 'spheres' (such as a father wants to live with his son in his home in Cuba rather than the US) just smash them. At the end the only sphere that really counts with them is the Federal Gov't controlled by them or whatever lesser sphere they are able to take command of.