Democrats regard federalism as quaint,
Republicans at least pay lip service to it. By David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
In the presidential debates, Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney ranged across dozens of topics, but an important one
didn't come up: federalism. And no wonder.
The idea that the Constitution grants
only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is
foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could
address voters' every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the
political class, Washington-in particular, Congress-does not have the power to
pass any law it wants in the name of the "general welfare."
Politicians should take heed. Voters
are increasingly focused on the proper role of government in society: Witness
the rise of the tea party and unease over the massive debt caused by
entitlements and other government handouts. The continuing loud objection to
ObamaCare's takeover of health care shows that voters want to preserve the
Constitution's architecture of limited federal power.
Keeping the federal government within
its proper constitutional sphere is critical to all Americans, regardless of
their political allegiance. This is because federalism is not about protecting
"states' rights" but about preserving individual liberty. In the
words of a unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States, by
"denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of
public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary
power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at
stake."
Federalism also allows states to craft
policies that best suit the preferences and needs of their
citizens, who can always vote with their feet. Likewise, leaving key policy
choices to state governments benefits voters through sheer proximity to
decision makers. State legislators are often part-timers who work and live in
our communities and are more palpably accountable to us.
State-level reform thus comes more
swiftly and better reflects the desires of ordinary constituents. States in
recent years have led the way in reforming welfare, health care, education and
regulatory policies. They have cut deficits, balanced budgets, reformed tax
codes and produced jobs.
Federalism also benefits the national
government. By having up to 50 different approaches to an issue,
Congress can see what works.
Despite federalism's many virtues, it
is not much in vogue. Democrats view it as a quaint, 18th-century relic,
another disposable constitutional concept that stands in the way of
"progress." The Obama administration has been particularly disdainful
of federalism, with ObamaCare unconstitutionally coercing states into
fundamentally revising their Medicaid programs and compelling
individuals-under the guise of regulating interstate commerce-to buy a
government-approved health-insurance policy.
Republicans pay lip service to
federalism but too often toss it aside to achieve their own policy goals. For
example, many congressional Republicans, concerned about abusive lawsuits,
would nationalize many aspects of medical malpractice, an area of law
traditionally reserved to the states.
Meanwhile big-spending states such as
California and Illinois have been lobbying Congress for a federal bailout of
their unfunded pensions. From the federalist perspective, it is appropriate
that the promiscuous spending of some states makes it difficult for them to
borrow more money. Such consequences, while dire, provide the political
leverage that citizens living within those states need to force their elected
representatives to reform.
Yet Washington may well end up rescuing
these nearly bankrupt states-because some states will compromise their own
sovereignty when the price is right, and the federal government is only too
happy to take over and claim political credit. For there is no more assiduous
underminer of federalism than the federal government itself. Every session of
Congress and every administration adds to the existing voluminous body of
federal law that continues to federalize wide swaths of traditional state
authority. This must stop.
There was one glimmer of hope for
federalism in the third presidential debate, when Mitt Romney talked about
saving Medicaid by making block grants to states. "We'll take that
health-care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because
states run these programs more efficiently," he said. "As a governor,
I thought please, give me this program. I can run this more efficiently than
the federal government and states, by the way, are proving it."
If Mr. Romney succeeds in his race for
the White House, let's hope he doesn't forget that states can be
trusted to run their own affairs.
Source: Mr. Rivkin served in the
Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and represented
26 states in challenging ObamaCare. He has advised the Romney campaign. Ms.
Foley is a law professor at Florida International University College of Law and
author of "The Tea Party: Three Principles" (Cambridge, 2011).
Comments;
There is no defense for the shape we’re
in. Liberals have, through force of
will, wrecked the country. There is no escape from blame. The most harmful laws
need to be repealed. regulations need to be rescinded and departments and
agencies need to be abolished. Less
harmful laws, regulations and agencies
need to be pared back and established at the State level. If we don’t revive the free market, we’re
dead.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Leader
Every adult has witnessed a perfect example of "whatever power the government provides for your needs, it also has the power to take that away from you"--the Soviet Union. People were led to believe that the government would take care of them from craddle to grave...well, it seems that did not work out so well for them so why in the world have we taken on that same thinking for government for our country.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers came from England, a country that had been dominated by foreign powers until 1066 when William Hastings became the first Saxton king and began to bring some stability to the region. Some 500 years later, Elizabeth The First began her world expansion which, without doubt, helped form many of the concepts that became intertwined in our Constitution.
Those Brits named George, Ben, Thomas, John...to name a few, were aware of the termoil caused when a ruler rules from afar...and experienced it first hand when they began to build a colony in the new country.
That is why the Constitution set up a form of government known as "STATES", and gave them the power to rule themselves in their day to day lives.
We have to keep in mind that at the time the country was founded, they had no idea just how big a place they were making a government for and also knew that parts of it was owned by other countries. Being actual thinking adults instead of the mindless types we have serving today...blinded by party and money instead of conviction gained through knowledge...they knew that by forming states they could isolate that which was under their domain yet they could allow for freedom and less government restriction...which will kill a country!
Too bad people do not know history and the trends set by government getting too big!
Our solutions are available in the constitution, but the Supreme Court is so far to the left that we are screwed!