Talking About Federalism (More Fred on Federalism)

ABC Radio ^ | 04/23/07 | Fred D. Thompson

[SE Mom]

My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism (you can read the original article here). It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.

Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.

Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd. I fought this for eight years in the Senate. I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.

[jellybean]

Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.

Fred sure has been busy...

Sign the Fred Thompson for President Petiton

▲ Click the box to see where he stands on the issues. ▲

Draft Fred Thompson

If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.

CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.

[ladyinred]

I like Fred, always have.

[stephenjohnbanker]

B T T T

[stephenjohnbanker]

Fred just gets better and better.

[Neville72]

“Sounds good unless he plans to apply this logic to the abortion debate and leave it up to the states. That would be like leaving slavery up to the states.”

That is EXACTLY what will happen when Roe is overturned.

Had Roe v Wade been correctly decided, we’d have a mix of state laws on the books determined by the citizens in each particular state rather than 9 unelected justices.(read Federalism).

In many states(read red states) having an abortion performed would be almost impossible(life of mother, rape <1% of current abortions)

Other states, Midwest and some mountain states would be less restrictive(strict 1st trismester only)but more restrictive than now.

Finally states like New York and some New England states along with California, Oregon and Washington would likely be wide open with few if any restrictions.

Even though it’s far from perfect, that scenario would save hundreds of thousands of unborn babies a year and curtail abortions in a significant way

Until peoples hearts are changed, that’s the best we can hope for.

[MeanWestTexan]

“Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone’s pet project designed to appeal to the voters.”

Spectacular.

[prairiebreeze]

The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.

I thought there was such a law, or am I misremembering and it's individual state laws? Perhaps Fred's point is that he cast the dissenting vote. Or perhaps the issue was federalized subsequently.

Or perhaps I'm mistaken, it's been known to happen. :^)

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade by ruling that every unborn baby in the Union is protected by the 14th amendment from being deprived of their life without due process.

Ruling that right-to-life states must respect the laws of right-to-murder states would be like the Dred Scot decision that free states had to respect the rights of slave states.

When the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to murder babies, the vast majority of the nation opposed abortion. The liberals didn't give a damn what was in the people's hearts back then, and guess what? I don't give a damn what the people want now. We live under rule of law, not under the arbitrary whim of the mob. We don't have to convince America, we just have to convince one more Supreme Court Justice.

[papasmurf]

100% genuine, 100% of the time.

Fred is 100% genuine leather.

The others are 100% genuine, imitation, naugahyde.

:O)

P Run, FRED, run!

[papasmurf]

“Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone’s pet project designed to appeal to the voters.”

THAT'S the "Washington solution". Which brings to mind...

...A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

:O)

P Run, FRED, run!