Thompson on Federalism  

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

If Fred Thompson can convince me he means this, he's going to get my vote.

My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism.

It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. 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. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.
Unfortunately, the federal welfare reform law didn't go far enough. It should have been the federal welfare elimination law instead.

Still, it's been a terribly long time since we've had a credible candidate that wants to talk about and advocate federalism. This is refreshing, to say the least. If I can get a good explanation as to why this man voted for the McCain-Feingold repeal of the First Amendment, I could easily see myself casting my ballot in his favor.
Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.
Federalism encourages diversity. As true and good as that is, watch Sharpton and Jackson do wee-wee dances and cartwheels trying to keep him out of office.
Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd.
Maybe this is why you voted Yay on McCain? Just a thought.
I fought this for eight years in the Senate.
Like when you voted Yay on McCain? Luckily, Fred offers a better example.
I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.

Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?
Amen, Fred. Nothing in the Constitution says the federal government can do anything like that. Of course, The First Amendment explicitly forbids the abridging of free speech and press. Why did you vote for it?
I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important. That's why I suggested to Mr. Ponnuru that if conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country -- as well as to the cause of conservatism.
I agree wholeheartedly.

My only concern with this man as a presidential candidate is his support of John McCain's blatant repeal of the First Amendment. With a good explanation of why he did that, I can easily see myself voting in his favor. I do fear that I'm going to get a Hitlery/Kerry-esque answer along the lines of "I voted for McCain-Feingold before I voted against it, and if I knew then when I know now...".

Time will tell. I can see myself voting for Thompson, but he's going to have to eat some shit for that blunder.

RWR



Comments (4)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
The weakness of federalism is the very thing that makes it necessary, that being the need for some kind of central authority that does not become tyrannical. Of course, the key to the people retaining their rights is supposed be found in the checks and balances. And the balance has proven to be a very tenous one indeed; that has not been in the best interests of the people since its inception due to a combination of apathy on the part of the governed, and the resulting disregard of the rules by the governors. A perfect case in point is the executive response during the Whiskey Rebellion (1794). The outcome was not a favorable one in terms of the efficiency of the present system in protecting the rights of the people, and this case occured during the Washington years, when the revolution was still fresh in the memory of the people. The Federal usurpations have been the order of the day in nearly every case that has come before the court in the years since. The Constitution has become the "shilly-shally thing that will not last" that Hamilton called it in 1792. That is why I remain a Jeffersonian democrat that has as its champion the "middle class yeoman farmer". Federalism will never champion the rights of the people, and was not , by design, meant to.

2007-04-26T19:23:26
The most important checks and balances of all have dropped the ball. That is to say that the most important checks and balances are supposed to come from the people themselves - those who today insist that the government do everything for them.

If the very people the Constitution was written to protect won't use it to protect themselves, then who will protect them from the government when it usuprps the Constitution and oppresses those very people?

A very disturbing state of affairs, to be sure. It's going to take a lot of hard work AND some divine intervention to make it happen.

Again, Thompson's apparent support of federalism will make him an excellent candidate if he can somehow talk his way out of his McCain-Feingold vote.

RWR

2007-05-03T06:55:23
How can you talk your way out of trying to repeal the First Amendment, and still be a "supportable" by conservatives?

2007-05-14T19:51:41
You can explain exactly how you believed that what you were voting for was constitutional - how it WASN'T a repeal of the First Amendment.

Remember, it wasn't Fred who put that POS together. It was John McCain. Was he somehow persuaded by McCain? Did he somehow miss something when he read the legislation?

I'd like to know what the deal is. If he can convince me, he has my vote. Lord knows I can't vote for a Donk.

RWR

2007-05-23T05:55:26

Post a new comment

Comments by