It seems to me that, with all the changes that Bush is proposing, that the Republican party is betraying its long support of Federalism or states rights and is moving toward more and more and more power for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. While I decry this change, there doesn’t seem to be much to do about it, given security worries at the national level.
However, neither the dems nor the republicans seem to support federalism any more. They both want a stronger and stronger central government.
Perhaps I should put this in IMHO as it is more an observation than an argument. But I am very saddened by the whole process. Or, should I say, nostalgic for federalism.
Federalism does not mean that states have the primary powers, nor does it mean that the federal goverment has the primary powers. Rather, each level of government has powers, designed for different purposes. When each government uses the powers that the Constitution assigns to them, for the purposes the Constitution envisages, that means that the federal system is working properly.
So, before accusing the Bushies et al. of trampling on states’ rights, you have to ask: Which level of government has primary responsibility for the defence of the United States? The answer to that is pretty clear, I would say: it’s the federal government, not the states.
Start with the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which states the goals of the federation:
As you go through the substantive provisions of the Constitution, it’s clear that the drafters meant to give the federal government the predominant role in defending the U.S. - the states retain some role in defence, but in this area, they take a back seat to the federal government.
For example, Article I, § 8 gives Congress the following powers:
Similarly, if you look at the list of powers that Article II, §2 gives to the President, you see that it begins with military powers:
Further, the Constitution recognizes that the states have a role to play in military matters, but that role is clearly subordinate to the role of the federal government. Article I, § 10 provides:
So, I would conclude that the drafters of the Constitution created a federal system where the federal government was to have the predominant role in national defence. You may disagree with the need for some of the measures that the Bush administration is proposing, but I think that most of those concerns are more properly grounded in the Bill of Rights, not that the federal government is usurping rights of the states. In the area of common defence, the states have a subordinate role.
As an official Old Curmudgeon, let me suggest that neither of the major parties has any abiding principles and that long ago, perhaps as early as their founding, both had transient interests that change from time to time. The prevailing interest of both outfits is what ever will get the most votes to advance that interest.
In the case of the Republican Party the interest is the interest of big business. In the case of the Democrat Party the dominant interest is the interest of big labor. All other causes are secondary to those two big constituent groups. In all things you can expect the GOP to be concerned with what is good for General Motors and for the Dems to be concerned with what is good for GM’s workers. If classic Federalism/States Rights is good for GM you can expect the GOP to defend and advance it. If it isn’t you can expect the GOP to ignore it or regard it as a local issue relevant only to the extent that it may get a GOP Congressman who will advance big business’s interest elected Thus you see a Republican President imposing tariffs of overseas steel, not because it helps GM but because it helps wean Pennsylvania and Ohio steelworkers and voters away from the party of big labor.
This may well be overly simplistic, but I think it is close to true.
The Republicans have been hypocrites for years as far as federalism goes. They rave about “State’s Rights”, yet the rights of states ends at the “war on drugs”. The fact that the voters of several states have voted to allow medicinal marijuana means absolutely nothing to the Bush Justice Dept.
Marijuana and other drugs that deprive an indivdual of their freedom are of national interest and rightly the charge of the federal government. Whether it be alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, heroin, or any other drug that impairs a persons reasoned decisions the government has a responsibility to ensure that the effects of those decisions are limited and if possible eliminated.
The use of “medical” marijuna is highly debated in the medical community. And advances in pain/nausea management will only serve to diminish the “valid” uses of marijuana in such theaters.
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this topic. I guess I agree with Northern Piper that much of what is going on is withn the Federal area of jurisdiction. On the other hand Mr. Frink seems correct when he talks about the war on drugs as encroaching on states prerogatives. Many are right about the parties not caring about a whit for anything other than their own contributors.
The war on terror is going to involve 1. greater centralization of federal power 2. greater encroachment on states’ prerogatives and 3. greater encroachment on citizens freedom. The time may come when such powers fall into the wrong hands. 4. More power to the executive.
WHAT IF WE HAD AN UNSTABLE, DICTATORIAL PRESIDENT WITH THESE POWERS???
Interestingly, we are centralizing power whereaas Russia is decentralizing. Maybe we are trading places with them.
This country has definitely abandoned states’ rights in all areas of policy, not just defense. The federal government began funding state highways so that the states would become used to this funding level and budget accordingly. Now the feds have the power to extort the states into accepting whatever flavor-of-the-week special interest agenda is on their plate. Recently, it was the lowering of the minimum BAL for a DUI from .10 to .07. The federal government got around the fact that it has no power to impose that type of law by threatening to cut highway funds if the states don’t comply.
Seeing that list in a former post of the enumerated powers was a fun trip down history. Our federal government has spent its entire existence trying to get around the limitations put upon it by the Constitution. Which, of course, is just what it was expected to do by our federalist founders. Only if states had the power to secede from the Union would such a monstrosity be controlled. Unfortunately, we’ve seen how that response was treated 140 years ago…invasion.
If the federal government restricted its exercise of central power to national defense, we’d be a greater nation for it. Unfortunately, politicians at the federal level need the power to promote or discourage a domestic agenda, because their fundraising apparatus requires them to meddle in those affairs to please donors (be it a business sector, a labour union, or ethnic group.) So we have legislation on domestic violence (spousal abuse) passed at the federal level under the commerce clause. Politicians will always find a way to get around the limits on their power.
This country has definitely abandoned states’ rights in all areas of policy, not just defense. The federal government began funding state highways so that the states would become used to this funding level and budget accordingly. Now the feds have the power to extort the states into accepting whatever flavor-of-the-week special interest agenda is on their plate. Recently, it was the lowering of the minimum BAL for a DUI from .10 to .07. The federal government got around the fact that it has no power to impose that type of law by threatening to cut highway funds if the states don’t comply.
Seeing that list in a former post of the enumerated powers was a fun trip down history. Our federal government has spent its entire existence trying to get around the limitations put upon it by the Constitution. Which, of course, is just what it was expected to do by our federalist founders. Only if states had the power to secede from the Union would such a monstrosity be controlled. Unfortunately, we’ve seen how that response was treated 140 years ago…invasion.
If the federal government restricted its exercise of central power to national defense, we’d be a greater nation for it. Unfortunately, politicians at the federal level need the power to promote or discourage a domestic agenda, because their fundraising apparatus requires them to meddle in those affairs to please donors (be it a business sector, a labour union, or ethnic group.) So we have legislation on domestic violence (spousal abuse) passed at the federal level under the commerce clause. Politicians will always find a way to get around the limits on their power.
This country has definitely abandoned states’ rights in all areas of policy, not just defense. The federal government began funding state highways so that the states would become used to this funding level and budget accordingly. Now the feds have the power to extort the states into accepting whatever flavor-of-the-week special interest agenda is on their plate. Recently, it was the lowering of the minimum BAL for a DUI from .10 to .07. The federal government got around the fact that it has no power to impose that type of law by threatening to cut highway funds if the states don’t comply.
Seeing that list in a former post of the enumerated powers was a fun trip down history. Our federal government has spent its entire existence trying to get around the limitations put upon it by the Constitution. Which, of course, is just what it was expected to do by our federalist founders. Only if states had the power to secede from the Union would such a monstrosity be controlled. Unfortunately, we’ve seen how that response was treated 140 years ago…invasion.
If the federal government restricted its exercise of central power to national defense, we’d be a greater nation for it. Unfortunately, politicians at the federal level need the power to promote or discourage a domestic agenda, because their fundraising apparatus requires them to meddle in those affairs to please donors (be it a business sector, a labour union, or ethnic group.) So we have legislation on domestic violence (spousal abuse) passed at the federal level under the commerce clause. Politicians will always find a way to get around the limits on their power.
(WTF?? It triple posted me at THREE different times spaced minutes apart?? It won’t let me edit my own posts even to get rid of that problem. My apologies to everyone for whatever the heck my browser was doing in that period of time.)