Conservative = Federalist?
The main problem with Conservatives these days is that they've attached themselves to the Republican party which is wedded to the social/moral conservatives. What ends up happening is that you trample all over your roots in order to implement your goals and satisfy your base. What happened to less government, fiscal responsibility and state's rights?
I am impressed with Rehnquist for staying true to his federalist leanings even in a politically charged case such as a state's right to set its own laws regarding medical marijuana.
***
Of course, this gets rather tricky as Roe v. Wade (abortion) can be thrown into the same bucket. Same with Brown vs. The Board of Education (segregation). Ultimately you could declare all these issues state rights issues that each state should deal with individually. Of course at that point you run the risk of deep differences between the states which could eventually lead to a dissolution of this fine country. A strong central gov't acts as an equalizer - we all give up certain freedoms in order to live together and work further on this careful balancing act. In the end you win some and you lose some.
I am impressed with Rehnquist for staying true to his federalist leanings even in a politically charged case such as a state's right to set its own laws regarding medical marijuana.
***
Of course, this gets rather tricky as Roe v. Wade (abortion) can be thrown into the same bucket. Same with Brown vs. The Board of Education (segregation). Ultimately you could declare all these issues state rights issues that each state should deal with individually. Of course at that point you run the risk of deep differences between the states which could eventually lead to a dissolution of this fine country. A strong central gov't acts as an equalizer - we all give up certain freedoms in order to live together and work further on this careful balancing act. In the end you win some and you lose some.
posted by z @ 5:50 PM
3 Comments:
At 8:49 AM,
Rama said…
Bummer Rehnquist is leaving. He's an intelligent man. Whatever happened to laisse faire government? These issues that are coming up ARE better dealt with at a local level. Because they'd be given a higher priority. Communities look out for their own (that's why smoking ordinances tend to have a greater effect if they are enacted at the city level, for example). The laws are easier (and probably cheaper) to enforce as well.
At 5:38 PM,
z said…
Yes, I agree that it is a shame Rehnquist is leaving. He is wise and acted as a good counter-balance to the "let's switch everything over to the feds cause it's easier to control".
I agree with you and the 10th Amendment that states should be left with all the powers not explicitly given to the feds. It's a delicate balance as some degree of uniformity is required.
Here is an interesting question - do you think segregation should be left to the states? What about abortion? Gay marriage? When it comes to these thorny issues of basic freedoms and civil liberties the issue gets quite a bit harder. Here's my take on it.
Marriage - take the "gov't" out of the marriage business period. gov't recognizes civil unions for all and the churches can bless who and what they like.
Abortion - federally legal as a basic woman's right with power left to the states to inhibit certain practices (e.g. late term abortions, parental notifications, etc.)
Segregation - federally illegal to segregate or discriminate.
And for some other ones...
Medical marijuana/ecstacy - power left to the states. feds get involved only in trafficking or illegal manufacturing.
Euthanasia - power left to the states.
At 10:29 AM,
Rama said…
well put. I agree with all your points. It seems the federal government doesn't think states are competent enough to handle these controversial issues by themselves. Or maybe they are just trying to keep controversy from getting out of control on all these issues (ie. state A cannot criticize state B for their legislation because they both are governed by federal mandates).
Post a Comment
<< Home