The New Federalist Left

Franklin Foer penned an interesting essay in yesterday's New York Times Book Review documenting a resurgence of states' rights rhetoric from the left, and tracing the intellectual history (it does actually exist) of Democratic Party federalism.

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

Matt Welch,

Its been "resurging" since the 1970s. Indeed, Justice Brenann wrote a piece of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1970s that trumpeted the nature of the state courts as bulwarks of "liberty."

[Shem]

Up here in WA, the King County Bar Association is pushing a plan that would evetually have the State legalize several different drugs for the purposes of better control. They actually justify it using a Federalist argument;

http://www.kcba.org/druglaw/proposal.html

Almost certainly will never go anywhere, but still, interesting that they raise the issue in liberal Washington State.

[thetruth]

Conservatives are only federalists when it enables them to oppress blacks.

[Franklin Harris]

RE: Drug laws,

If it took a constitutional amendment to institute national alcohol prohibition, why isn't one necessary to institute national drug prohibition? In other words, why aren't drugs already a state issue?

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

[joe]

"Conservatives are only federalists when it enables them to oppress blacks."

Bullshit. To say that conservatives limit their support for federalism to the persecution of African Americans ignores the many, many other minority groups whose persecution the Right justifies with federalist rhetoric: gay people, terminal patients, pregnant women, non-Christians...

I insist that you disavow your slander.

[BillyRay]

Joe writes:Bullshit. To say that conservatives limit their support for federalism to the persecution of African Americans ignores the many, many other minority groups whose persecution the Right justifies with federalist rhetoric: gay people, terminal patients, pregnant women, non-Christians...

I insist that you disavow your slander.

Comment by: joe at March 7, 2005 02:23 PM

How are those on the right persecuting any of the above?

[Mo]

Not to speak for joe, but let me give it a try.

gay people: See constitutional amendment against gay marriage. (Don't get where the federalist rhetoric comes in here)

terminal patients: See Ashcroft's campaign against Oregon's right to die laws (As above, I also don't get where the federalist rhetoric comes in here)

pregnant women: Opposition of Roe v. Wade

non-Christians: I'm going to guess Ten Comandments and other religious displays.

I don't agree with joe on all these, but I know where he's going. joe, please explain how the first two involve conservatives using, rather than opposing federalism?

[crimethink]

Mo,

That's an excellent effort at making sense of joe's list, but you must surely realize by now that he trots out the same list of oppressed-by-conservative groups in every other thread.

It's not expected to actually apply to the specific issue at hand, just to remind us that conservatives = oppressive bigots. In case we could ever forget.

[Eric the .5b]

gay people: See constitutional amendment against gay marriage. (Don't get where the federalist rhetoric comes in here)

An area where Kerry would have been "better", because he wanted that oppression enforced on the state level.

[Eric the .5b]

However Mo, you are remiss in not listing the Republican (and Democratic) eagerness to eviscerate federalism for the War on Drugs and, well, pretty much any opportunity to engage in pork barrel spending.