[Always Right]

Fred is a federalist first, so he is against social policy being made at the federal level. Fred has been very consistant in his federalist view of government.

[Sir Gawain]

I know, it’s refreshing to see someone actually adhering to the Founders’ vision. The US was never meant to be a place where all states were carbon copies of each other.

[goldstategop]

A lot of people don't agree with him and Rudy about the appropriateness of a federalist stand on the social policy. Its kind of like a neither/or position. The Left will never agree to states defending traditional values. A federalist position sounds reasonable but in fact, provides the Left with cover to eradicate traditional values in the states where they now exist.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[CheyennePress]

Fred Thompson, I’m afraid, is guilty of taking his federalist viewpoint to the point where it’s harmful.

He’s dead wrong on national tort reform, for instance. In this age of venue shopping, interstate and internet commerce, and being in a litigious society, it’s vital to shore up tort reform at a national level. It really doesn’t matter if 48 states have a specific loophole closed. All it takes is one loophole in the Idaho tax code, and then the dam is breached and the lawsuits can flood in.

He’s also wrong the federal marriage amendement. We’ve already seen what a liberal court can do in Massachusetts. Had John Kerry won election in 2004, me may very well have seen the Supreme Court remain biased to the left.

He’s also voted on the right side of gun control issues only 19 times out of 31 in the name of federalism. This isn’t something that’s of great importance to me, but it appears to be an issue with a number of people here.

I like the idea of federalism in a number of ways, but it takes a bit of thinking as to which issues are important on a national level and why.

Blind federalism is simply impractical and counterproductive.

[supercat]

Fred is a federalist first, so he is against social policy being made at the federal level. Fred has been very consistant in his federalist view of government.

I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to allow any state to run roughshod over all states. If a state wishes to honor same-sex unions, it should be allowed to do so but no other state that does not wish to honor same-sex unions should have any obligation to honor those created in the former. Congress is given the power to decide what effects judicial actions in one state should have in another; it could, even without a constitutional amendment, pass a law providing that any state could fulfill any and all obligations regarding other states' "civil unions" by offering unions that move in a certificate that says "Massachusetts says you're married. Good for them. Doesn't mean we care."