I for one must say it’s about time. Representative Robert Brady (D-Pa.) is planning to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress. On Fox News he said emphatically that “you can’t put a bull’s-eye or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official.” He also said, “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down.” Amen, brother. But let’s not stop at just bull’s-eyes or crosshairs. We need to make sure nothing triggers another individual like this. After all, we don’t know for sure he even saw the map on Sarah Palin’s web site. Maybe he’s was a basketball fan.
Pennsylvania
Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill. Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it. The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president. This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government. Here is my analysis.
One of the great blessings bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers was federalism. Our federal form of government evolved from the Articles of Confederation, where states had primacy and the national government acted only with the consent of the states. This proved to be too cumbersome.
In writing the Constitution, the Founders identified very specific roles and responsibilities for the national government and left everything else to the states or the people (see Tenth Amendment). In doing so it gave the people the power of liberty through mobility. If you didn’t like the way they did things in Massachusetts, you could move to Virginia. If the people of Pennsylvania didn’t want a mass migration of people to Georgia, they needed to be careful regarding the laws that they passed so as not to alienate a large block of their constituents.
The War on Federalism
The statist, who loves government and believes government should control every aspect of our lives, hates federalism, because it weakens its control. So they attack it through the courts.
Here is their standard battle plan. Let’s the case of Gay Marriage. Vermont’s legislature approves Gay Marriage. Whether you are in favor of that or oppose that it shouldn’t affect you if you don’t live in Vermont. If you are in favor and you live elsewhere, you can move to Vermont. If you live there and are opposed you can either fight to overturn it in Vermont, or move elsewhere. That’s the beauty of federalism. If continued to its logical conclusion, some states would approve it and those in favor would migrate there, and those who are opposed would concentrate in states that would ensure that it would not be adopted in their state. You could have a raging debate, but your liberty would be preserved through mobility.
However, the statists have a different view of things. After the law is passed in Vermont by the legislature (as is proper), or made up out of thin air by the court in Massachusetts (judicial activism and improper), some couples who are married in these states move to another state. By doing so, they should leave their state sanctioned rights behind. However, what they will typically do when their Vermont sanctioned rights are not honored in, say, Tennessee they will rush to federal court and says their Constitutional rights are being violated. A court stocked with judicial activists, will find some fig leaf of justification with words like emanations and penumbras, to make a new law of the land and with the stroke of a pen, the liberties of all Americans will be swept away based on the will of the people of Vermont. You no longer can protect your liberty through mobility. You cannot go anywhere to live in proximity to like minded people and live the life you believe in. Mobility is no longer a tool to protect your liberty it is a weapon against you. People can secure rights elsewhere and use mobility to come to your doorstep and use the courts to force their beliefs on you.
Fierce Fighting
I believe that is why the fighting over these issues become so fierce and acrimonious. If something is allowed anywhere, it will soon be allowed everywhere, because of an activist judiciary. Our rhetoric has become more strident, our politics is anything but bipartisan, all because everything is being elevated to the federal level. States are becoming less and less important. If you don’t believe it ask people, who was responsible for the fiasco after hurricane Katrina? If they say President Bush, ask them to name the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana at the time. Bush and the federal government should have been the third line of defense, not the first. The first should have been the city, then the state and then the federal government.
Back to Federalism
Show me where in the constitution it says the government should own General Motors and Chrysler. Show me where it says that a tunnel, entirely in the city of Boston should be paid for by the taxpayers of Arizona. Show me where in the constitution it says education is the responsibility not of local government but the federal government. It doesn’t. And until well roll back this juggernaut, our liberties will be crushed little by little, day by day.
This is why it is also important to guard against activist judges getting on the bench or being elevated to higher levels of the court. It is just these activist judges who are taking away your liberty to move away from those who don’t believe what you do and moving toward those you do agree with. Take note of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Now that Arlen Specter has jumped ship to the Democratic Party, there is outrage amongst the Republicans. Sorry, folks, but I don’t share your outrage so point that muzzle away from your other foot. In 2004, Arlen Specter had a strong primary challenge from Pat Toomey, a conservative. Toomey came within two percentage points of beating Specter and taking the Republican nomination. Not sure that Toomey could win the general election and fearing losing control of the Senate to the Democrats, President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum, also a conservative, threw their weight behind Specter, a moderate at best, though a liberal label would fit all the same.
So, where do we stand today? Bush is gone. Santorum is gone. The Democrats not only control the Senate but are a whisker away, with Specter’s help, of gaining filibuster-proof control. It’s the same old story. Republicans get weak kneed about being strong conservatives and then wonder why they lose? They cut deals with liberals or statists as Mark Levin aptly calls them, and then get their heads handed to them on Election Day. Bush and Santorum should have either stayed out of the race or thrown their support behind Toomey back in ’04. Specter won the primary and the general election and proceeded to thank Bush by sticking his thumb in Bush’s eye whenever he got the chance.
So spare me the angst, the hand ringing, the “how could yous?”. Republicans had the chance to fix this in 2004 but they went wobbly, as Margaret Thatcher used to say. So stop your whining and learn your lessons and don’t do it again.