There has been a lot of talk about federalism these days amongst the Republican candidates for president. Federalism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition adds:
A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.So now we know a bit more about the subject matter, let's look at what is being said by the candidates.
Note: The precise extent of state and federal responsibility has always been controversial. Republican administrations, for example, have tended to grant more authority to the states, thereby encouraging political and economic freedom but discouraging comprehensive social welfare. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court left the interpretation of many civil rights guarantees to the states, resulting in widespread discrimination against minorities.
Rudy on Federalism
Rudy was interviewed by the LA Times recently:
In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments "where our society on a national level ends up being very divided" is to apply the "principle of federalism." Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, "are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role."There is some debate as to whether or not these views makes Rudy a federalist or not. I leave that determination to you, the reader.
That perspective leads Giuliani toward positions uncomfortable for both left and right. As mayor, for instance, Giuliani supported President Clinton's nationwide ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. But President Bush allowed that ban to lapse, and now Giuliani (in a view many gun-control advocates consider impractical) says decisions on whether to ban such weapons should be made "on a state-by-state, almost city-by-city basis."
Conversely, although Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage, his federalism perspective leads him to also oppose conservative calls for a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. "The way we should deal with it now is let states decide do they want to have some sort of domestic partnership or civil union?" he says.
Even under a federalist strategy, abortion remains the most intractable social dispute. A purist federalist approach would argue for overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a nationwide right to abortion, and allowing states to decide whether to ban or permit the practice. But that would ignite political warfare across the 50 states likely to inflame rather than extinguish the conflict about the issue.
Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, doesn't urge Roe's repeal and insists that he can't predict whether the "strict constructionist" justices he's pledged to appoint would vote to overturn it. But he argues that even if the Supreme Court reverses the decision, the nation could "get through it" by allowing each state to "come to a different decision" about whether to legalize abortion in the aftermath. For now, he says, states should maintain flexibility on whether to publicly fund abortion through Medicaid.
Giuliani applies his federalist perspective far beyond social issues. He says his next step on healthcare would be to encourage more state experimentation with expanding coverage. Likewise, he would delay any national requirement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to give the state experiments with limits underway in California, Florida and elsewhere "more time to play itself out."
Even with this strong preference, Giuliani says "you can't be a rigid slave to federalism." Disappointing conservatives, he says he's inclined to retain the nationwide educational testing requirements Bush imposed (though he would seek greater incentives for private school choice).
Nor would he "absolutely rule out" federal legislation on assault weapons if the state action he prefers proves insufficient. Disappointing liberals, he says he might eventually support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage if too many states approved it, especially through the courts.
The Fred on Federalism
The Fred has a great blog piece on federalism. The highlights:
Beyond specific policies, what's needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.Since Fred is writing this himself, as opposed to having this written about him, I get the sense that federalism is more than just a tactic intended to sway an audience (conservatives) in to thinking that he'll be okay on issues that he might be squishy on.
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
It is not enough to say that we are "for" federalism, because in today's world it is not always clear what that means. What we are "for" is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.
The Analysis
How these two candidates view federalism is fundamental to how these candidates think.
It appears to me that the focus on federalism from the Rudy camp comes as a dodge to soothe social conservatives, in particular, on their issues and fails to address what Rudy actually believes about the content of those issues. As a political strategy, it is brilliant. Like the announcement that Rudy would appoint strict constructionist judges, the federalism argument is intended to deflect criticism on certain issues by deflecting the responsibility for those decisions to the states. That might work in a campaign, but I question whether or not President Rudy would actually go through with it once in office. Not that I doubt his sincerity, I just know that absolute power corrupts absolutely and when you are the leader of the free world, I would imagine the view changes a bit.
Fred's piece is another example of how American's used to speak and write about their country. It is filled with passionate language and high ideals. He is a very skilled writer and thinker. While Fred may be taking advantage of the Rudy debate without mentioning the Republican frontrunner by name, the views expressed in the piece are right on target and well worthy of a candidate for the highest office in the land. One doesn't get the sense from Fred that he is using the federalism argument to get around a policy disagreement with the American people. That speaks volumes for his character and brand of leadership.
