New at Reason
Fred Thompson says he's a federalist? Jacob Sullum would like to see what he means by that.
Comments to "New at Reason":
BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 7:41am | #
It's the new Republican definition of federalism - everything they think that might possibly make baby Jeebus cry becomes a federal crime.BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 8:19am | #
Okay, after I RTFA, that was a little unfair to Thompson. But only slightly.John-David | September 19, 2007, 9:01am | #
I suppose I'd prefer Thompson's highly flawed federalism over the unabashed statism of almost ever other candidate with a realistic chance of winning.Then again, I thought I could live with Bush's highly flawed conservatism, and haven't exactly been happy with that result.
Johnny | September 19, 2007, 10:30am | #
I know this is stupid and petty, probably all of my comments are, but I was very, very happy to see this line in Mr. Sullum's article:at least when it comes to the division of powers between the federal government and the states.
Probably my biggest grievance is speaking of "state rights" which don't exist, but speaking of state powers, federal powers and individual rights and the ways in which the federal powers step on the constitutionally granted powers of the state is worthy of a discussion.
Of course we are still pretty far from admitting that legally, states have no rights, the federal government has no rights, only the individuals who give the grant of power to either entity have rights.
Still, nice to see.
I'm not saying I'm jumping on board the Thompson train, but I have to admit that it isn't too often that a candidate mentions the 10th amendment in a video on his site.
Cesar | September 19, 2007, 12:51pm | #
I'm not saying I'm jumping on board the Thompson train, but I have to admit that it isn't too often that a candidate mentions the 10th amendment in a video on his site.Yeah, I appreciate that he mentioned the 10th also. I don't think most politicians even know what it means.
JBinMO | September 19, 2007, 12:56pm | #
"Yeah, I appreciate that he mentioned the 10th also. I don't think most politicians even know what it means."Was it repealed?
Cesar | September 19, 2007, 12:57pm | #
Was it repealed?No, just completely ignored since about 1933.
JBinMO | September 19, 2007, 2:27pm | #
"No, just completely ignored since about 1933."That clears up a lot, thanks.
J sub D | September 19, 2007, 2:36pm | #
Was it repealed?Nah, the supremes have decided that the commerce clause covers everything, thus there is no issue that is prohibited to the feds. Similar to the reasoning that anything that gets wet is a navigable waterway.
Untermensch | September 19, 2007, 2:39pm | #
But he recently muddied the waters by advocating a constitutional amendment that would bar state judges from requiring state legislatures to permit same-sex unions. [emphasis added]At least to me, it seems that this is a separate issue from federalism, even if it's using the wrong stick (a pan-state amendment) to beat this issue. One could be a staunch federalist and yet argue that the judiciary has no business overriding the state legislature on matter such as this one. Mind, I'm not arguing one way or another on whether states should allow civil unions (or gay marriage), but rather that a federalist could be worried that the judiciary could be a de facto overriding power in the debate that works against federalism.