Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Voters: Let States Go Their Own Way
It never ceases to amaze me that advocacy for states’ rights — and suspicion of federal power — is portrayed as the viewpoint of the lunatic fringe. In fact, it is the view of mainstream America. The latest summary from Rasmussen:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Other highlights include:
- Most voters have long believed that the Supreme Court justices have their own political agenda, and they still tend to feel that that agenda is more liberal than conservative.
- A plurality (47%) of voters continues to believe the federal government has too much influence over state governments, and 54% think states should have the right to opt-out of federal government programs that they don’t agree with. Even more (61%) think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them.
- The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.
- Only 20% now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty. Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead.
Burwell and Obergefell plainly reveal that the Supreme Court has become a nakedly political institution.
There was doubt in the minds of many after Roe v. Wade, but that doubt has been cleared. I suspect that even Leftists would admit it, seeing it as a feature instead of a bug. What they can’t obtain through legislatures, they gain by litigation.
Whether any state’s legislature or governor has the courage to do anything about it remains to be seen.
Keep pushing on this Adam. I am convinced this is the only chance we have to roll back the federal monolith. It is going to take some courageous governors to get this done but it can happen!
But wait…didn’t Rob Long say it’s a done deal in the last podcast? The Supremes have ruled. They have overturned not only the will of the people, but 5000 years of societal norm. Is that their job? Is it even a good thing regardless? I do not believe this issue can be resolved by edict. The Supreme Court does not carry that kind of universal respect. In many cases their judgments are complete political hackery. The people, left and right, know this. To Mr. Long I say this is not a done deal. The real upheaval is just about to start. The Fat Lady hasn’t even cleared her throat.
The Supreme Court is an illegitimate and corrupt institution that deserves no respect.
Don’t hold back Mike, how do you really feel?
You make a good point. The country wants states rights, but I think the difficulty is getting there. The congressional process won’t allow it. There are factions in Congress that wants control of their own issues and there is enough stalemate in the process for each faction to hold on. I don’t see the media characterizing states rights advocates as “lunatic fringe” but as unrealistic, and, if it comes from a politician, as empty rhetoric, especially during an election cycle. I certainly believe in states rights. I wish we could find a way to enforce it.
Oh one other thing as I think about it. States themelves ask for federal handouts, so the whole process is intertwined with factions and self-interests. Politics is messy.
That’s an important point. Many – perhaps most – state politicians willingly abdicate autonomy in exchange for federal handouts (this is a point I make in my book, it has also been well documented by law professor Michael Greve). Until the New Deal, the Supreme Court was the primary enforcer of the structural aspects of the Constitution — federalism and separation of powers. Now the Supreme Court is inconsistent, at best, in defense of structure.
I think the best way forward is a few broad, structural reforms that have widespread appeal and will result in some devolution of power away from Washington; to wit: balanced budgets (which will severely limit Washington’s ability to bribe the states); term limits (which will reduce the incentives for pork barrel spending); and limiting Federal Court jurisdiction — more on that in a subsequent post.
“No respect” goes a bit too far for my taste, but really, I’m almost there. What we’ve seen with the court is a slow-motion coup d’etat. The court has been smart enough to go only so fast as to avoid provoking a big reaction.
I saw from Twitter that Texas is now repatriating its gold stockpile. Looks like somebody in the Lone Star State is making plans. At this point I don’t see any way out of this current mess short of secession.
I’ll give the contrary view a shot.
In order to be a nation, we need a floor below which no individual rights can fall, imposed by the federal government onto the states.
What need for a full faith and credit clause if that is not desirable? Or a 14th amendment?
Was not the Articles of Confederation with its loose association of states a failed US experiment, leading to a weak nation too scrawny to survive even a decade?
Are we shooting Hamilton again?
So it appears most of you want for the Supreme Court to no longer be able to strike down state laws it deems unconstitutional. I’m sure the gun-haters in New York, New Jersey, and Chicago would think that’s fine. They could pass state laws absolutely outlawing guns and the Supreme Court would have no authority to stop them. If certain religious denominations are highly unpopular in some places and people wanted them quashed, or a state wanted to show favoritism to the most widely-practiced religion, that’s OK, too.
I certainly don’t agree with every Supreme Court decision but I kind of like the notion that as an American citizen, there is a packet of constitutional rights I carry around with me regardless of which state I’m in. I am not so eager to return to a pre-14th Amendment understanding of the Bill of Rights.
Good point on the need to be a cohesive nation, but I think we’ve gone too far in the other direction. The laws imposed by the federal government don’t seem so much to impinge on individual rights (to my perception) but on policy that the electorate by and large wants (though we conservatives might balk at) and that the states could implement. The federal goverment through Congress has determined what it considers a best solution and feels the need to enforce it or coerce it through mandates. From the either side States either want to escape the internal political ramifications and thereby offload blame to the Feds or take a hand out. Obamacare is one of the few examples where the electorate actually doesn’t want it, and so you see states here fighting back on it. But if the electorate wanted Obamacare I suspect states would just accept it.
Those reforms would certainly help, but I just can’t see the process in which they pass. We already know term limits will not pass. Perhaps limiting the Courts is possible, but I suspect Democrats would never go for it and perhaps fight tooth and nail. They know that’s how they get their policies through. But Congress or the Executive Branch limiting themselves will IHO wind up at a dead end.
As has been pointed out in other places, this is happening now. New Jersey remains a hellhole for gun rights, New York and Chicago are dragging their feet and no one is saying a word. And Oregon is currently crushing a couple of non-conforming dissenters.
So we can have this disaster and a dictatorial court, or we can just have this disaster.
Screw the courts. States should blanket refuse to obey them. It’s happening anyway. We might as well do it to.
Words matter. To win the federalism battle we need to replace the term “states rights” with another. State rights has too great an emotional connotation from slavery and the Civil War. Maybe “state responsibilities” or “state powers” could substitute. Or maybe just “return to federalism.” There must be better possibilities, preferably with only two syllables which are better for memorable slogans.
“State sphere”? “State field”? “State control.” “State authority”? (Thesaurus about exhausted.)
We need someone more creative than I to come up with a new term.
I’m fond of the word “Autonomy,” personally.
The idea that the three branches of government are equal is a myth, and arguably has been since Marbury. The decisions of the SCOTUS have the weight of the Constitution, and nothing short of either a Constitutional amendment or the Court reversing itself can undo that.
The main flaw of the founders seems to have been their inability to imagine how creative their successors would be in interpreting the powers granted to them.
Let’s face it – the federal government holds all the cards because it has all the money. As long as the 16th amendment stands and the feds can reach into the pockets of the residents of the states and tax them directly then dole back the money based on state adherence to federal mandates, nothing will change. If I were to repeal one amendment, it would be that one. In its place, I would put something that turned the tables – the states would collect the taxes and dole the money out to Washington based on its adherence to the principles of federalism. That would automatically encourage the states to take care of their own needs first before Washington’s.
In South Carolina’s declaration of separation from the Union, it claimed that when the Revolutionary War was won, Britian acknowledged each colony as a “Free, Soveriegn, and Independent State”. It argued that they existing this way at the end of the war, before the Constitution, and were returning to that position. To read their declaration is a walk through US history. Yes, slavery was a big point of contention, and what isn’t discussed much is the economic effect the sudden abolition of slavery caused.
I think my years in public school did me a big disservice in distilling the Civil War down to Lincoln as a god and all Southerners as slaveholders. The complexity of the issues were never really resolved outside of slavery.
You can find these declarations here.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#South_Carolina