Posted on 04/23/2007 6:24:06 PM PDT by areafiftyone
In my article about Fred Thompson’s record on tort reform on federalism, I noted that he had, contrary to some news reports, supported many instances of it. I suggested that on one issue where many conservatives had differed with him — federal legislation on medical malpractice — Thompson was right and most conservatives were wrong. My remaining concerns about his record, Thompson reasonably says, “hardly constitute[] the stuff of a major dispute.” Yet my 712-word article has nevertheless occasioned a 1,120-word response from the former senator.
|
Thompson does not spend much time on the individual policy disputes involved here, preferring to raise the level of philosophical abstraction. I’ll follow his lead. On tobacco, I’ll just note that Thompson continues to see the anti-tobacco lawyers’ fees as a matter of “freedom of contract,” which is sort of ridiculous given the context I explained in my article. Asking that officers of the court not get sweetheart deals from state attorneys general to whom they had given campaign contributions isn’t the same thing as regulating a candlestick maker. I’m sure Thompson’s legislation on preemption, meanwhile, would have led to a lovely philosophical conversation about federalism — in some alternate universe. But there’s no reason we can’t have that conversation here. Senator Thompson’s passion for federalism is refreshing, and I share his desire for open debate on the subject. That debate would profit from the avoidance of caricature. I don’t believe, and said nothing to indicate that I believe, that “the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate anything affecting commerce, no matter how remote.” Nor do I believe that conservatives should “pick the result we want” based on who we consider to be “bad guys” and legislate accordingly. I am no more “applying [a] conservative litmus test” than Senator Thompson is in his response. Senator Thompson questions my “commitment” to federalist principle. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have different understandings of what federalist principles, and their implications, are. I believe that the Founders’ design requires the federal government to keep states from interfering with interstate commerce. (It is, incidentally, bizarre that Thompson name-checks James Madison, who wanted the Congress to approve all state legislation and worried that the Constitution’s restrictions on state governments were “not sufficient.”) Large areas of federal law — see, for instance, telecom, securities, health insurance, and airline law are devoted precisely to this purpose. On Senator Thompson’s professed principles, however, we should have dueling state regulations to govern these industries and called it “federalism.” The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution. But the Constitution does lay out specific rules for the interaction of states with one another and with the federal government, and a theory about those relations can be inferred from it. The federal government can, and has, violated those rules and that theory, and Thompson has steadfastly resisted those encroachments. But state governments can do the same thing, and increasingly do. Senator Thompson has given more thought to federalism than, I would guess, any of the other presidential candidates. But he has never shown any evidence that he understands this point, either in his Senate career or in this peculiar letter. |
Posted twice
Link? I missed it!
can you post a link? Ramesh just posted this retort just 3 hrs ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822246/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822325/posts
These are Fred’s newest- not sure if anyone had posted the reply by Ramesh before areafiftyone..
Actually Ramesh refers to your two articles in his first paragraph. I don’t think mine was posted yet. But maybe the moderator can tell me if it was. I did a search but it didn’t come up.
I think you’re right- you’re the only one who posted Ramesh’s reply. Facinating debate between two very bright guys.
I believe Ramesh invites him to keep the dialogue open. This is good!
Bump for later
Bill Hobbs: “Fred Thompson defends federalism in a RedState.com response to Ramesh Ponnuru’s recent attack on Thompson’s Senate votes on tort reform. The winner here is Thompson, by a landslide. Fred voted the right way - the conservative way.”
http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/04/federalist_fred.html
*
Kleinheider: “Well done. Well crafted response... I must compliment Thompson on his excellent use of the blogosphere here. A challenge was brought by a member of the National Review editorial board and Thompson responded quickly and effectively.
I believe this is a taste of the kind of alternative campaign Thompson will be engaging in. His dislike of retail politics is well known among those types who care about such things. While it is no replacement for the kind of politics Fred will seek to eschew, it is clear Thompson knows how to use the tools and is using them with precision.”
http://www.news2wkrn.com/vv/2007/04/well_allow_him_to_retort.html
Ramesh is trying a little too hard to become the story.
Fred’s words are on a caliber with “there you go again.” They resonate with simplicity.
And miracle of miracles: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FEDERALISM, THANKS TO FRED!
Ponnuru is losing this argument... if the issue at hand is "sweetheart deals from state attorneys general", there are better avenues to address the problem than the federal legislative branch -- state agencies, bar associations, and possibly the federal Justice Dept. (administrative branch) are far more reasonable places to address the problem than the U.S. Senate.
I’ll be glad to read some discussions on Federalism. I just hope they remain civil and don’t devolve into silliness and nit-picking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.