The Tea Party’s Constitution, A federalism debate on the right

Weekly Standard ^ | 29 August 2011 | Adam J. White

[Lorianne]

Campaign events tend not to be the first place to look for nuanced constitutional debate; the Lincoln-Douglas encounters are the exception that proves the rule. So what are the odds that a thoughtful debate would occur not just between candidates of rival parties, or even rival wings of the same party, but within the Tea Party itself?

Yet that’s just what’s taking place, judging by the latest Republican debate in Ames, Iowa. The candidates there split sharply over questions of federalism and liberty. Interestingly, each side’s vision of the Constitution finds support in the Tea Party’s constitutional rhetoric.

[Lorianne]

It is no exaggeration to say that Bachmann’s view is sharply at odds with several decades of conservative legal thought, which in the main has been an effort to limit federal power under the Commerce Clause, while preserving state power under the Tenth Amendment. Bachmann’s libertarian argument, by contrast, turns the U.S. Constitution against both federal and state power. To the extent that she has rooted her view of limited state power in the Constitution’s text, she must be relying on the Fourteenth Amendment ...

[Paladin2]

"Bachmann’s libertarian argument, by contrast, turns the U.S. Constitution against both federal and state power."

I don't know about the libertarian part, but I am certainly in favor of limiting the power of gov't at ALL levels.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Looks like The Weekly Standard just may troll Free Republic...because the very fact that there was a wonderfully vigorous debate between Republicans on the issue of federalism was duly noted in the thread about that debate...

I just hope the Tea Party doesn’t begin to fracture along lines regarding such intramural debates...we must be united in defeating Hussein and his cult.

[kjo]

It’s the big secret nobody wants to talk about...government has gotten too big and intrusive at all levels.

[crz]

Yes, and the local governments do not hesitate to go where when they need cash?

Just whos fault is this? Its yours and mine and everyones. The big squeeky wheel took and took and whined and bitched and got greased, while the rest of us stood by and let it all happen.

[Phlyer]

. . .government has gotten too big and intrusive at all levels.

You're absolutely right . . . but the US Constitution does not limit the states in this particular area. It does limit the Federal government.

If we don't like what our state does on something like this, we can move. Which is why California is losing all the productive workers and Texas is gaining so many.

However, we're in a very difficult cusp right now, because the states that do chose to mandate stupid things (like Mass. and Calif.) have an expectation that they will be bailed out by the Federal government. To that end, 'regulation of interstate commerce' gives the federal government a responsibility to keep their stupid decisions from penalizing my state.

The right, Constitutional, answer is for the federal government to stay out of state bailouts - especially if they get in trouble for doing things that the federal government is precluded from doing.

It is *not* to ignore the written words of the Constitution so that we make it say what *we* want it to say any more than we can allow the statists to make it say what *they* want it to say.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I’d like to see the Fed greatly constrained. As for the states, if I don’t like what my state does, I can always move.

I think that was lost in the past few decades. Let’s use health care as an example. If people want an imposed healthcare system, they could move to Massachusetts. Now, with the new healthcare law, every state will be the same (or same enough).

I don’t mind people in Massachusetts or California doing whatever they want. I do mind when they make me go along and resent that the only way to escape it is to leave the country.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Maybe I should have written, “What Phlyer said.”

[Paladin2]

Don’t forget your city/township, county, school district and other entities. They can also be troublesome.

[Paladin2]

"if I don’t like what my state does, I can always move."

Sometimes it's difficult to get the State policies aligned with the desired geography and job situations. Eventually it comes down to a fight.

[Publius6961]

It’s the big secret nobody wants to talk about...government has gotten too big and intrusive at all levels.

If memory serves me right, that was precisely the perception that induced the existence of the Tea Party : a philosophy with no leadership or gurus that affirmed that the working Taxpayer is Taxed Enough Already.

Since the sole legitimate function of taxation is to fund the legitimate functions of government, the movement is clearly saying that government at all levels have grown too big and despotic.
The government of the people by the people is a fond memory.

Time to reclaim the power of those who actually enable government; and everything else :

The working taxpayer.