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.
First Principles: The Fairweather Federalist
I find curious the subject of sanctuary cities; specifically why limited government conservatives support the Trump administration’s attempts to “do something” about them. Those attempts haven’t yielded much other than litigation, and so the Trump administration has started talking about arresting local officials who do not play along. Similar is the Attorney General’s recent decision to rescind the Cole Memo, paving the way for federal prosecutors to begin cracking down on marijuana producers and retailers in states where such a thing is legal.
We have the phenomenon of those conservatives who talk about the virtues of federalism, states’ rights, subsidiarity, and limited government but it all goes right out the window when it comes to Mexicans or pot.
And so I must ask the question to those fair-weather federalists who see no problem: What is the general principle at work here?
Before you answer, let me propose a test of principle.
If you state a principle of federalism, “The feds can do X, states shouldn’t be able to do Y,” I ask that you test it by applying the Fugitive Slave Act. If you apply the Fugitive Slave Act, and you are comfortable with the results, then you’ve established your principle.
To those of you who are able to thread that needle, please speak up. State your general principle. I’m eager to hear it.
Published in General
What exactly is the point of this little exercise? I’ve pondered over this and the other post and arrived at two possible conclusions:
Now, which is it? I’m honestly wrestling with the decision.
What it’s not is an interest in exploring an idea or philosophy with the members to gain a better understanding.
All models are wrong, some models are useful.
This one doesn’t seem to be useful. But I am willing to listen.
Please explain to me Fred this method by which you apply an agreeably bad law to attempt to define a good law.
Is the Fugitive Slave Act just to the immediate bad side of the good law /bad law dividing line, such that any law slightly more good than the Fugitive Slave Act is ostensibly good?
Could be both.
Embrace the power of “and”.
I think more along the lines that Federalists would believe certain laws never should have been enacted at a Federal level.
Securing borders and national defense are considered federal jurisdiction based on the Constitution. Also, procuring the means in which to financially support those requirements of the federal law, whether by Tariff or Income Tax or some other means that is done with sufficient representation, is also within the purview of the Federal Government.
The Federal government has not established purview over the movements of peoples within the US borders (or exiting the US borders). I do not know if there are laws, Federal or State, that dictate the crossing of state borders within the country.
Transportation and cultural or value laws, charity and welfare accommodations, etc. should be decided upon locally. The more local, the more diverse. The more diverse, the more options there are for people to find a place that mirrors their own culture and values while also giving them more influence over the decisions made.
And while the Fugitive Slave Clause was once part of the Constitution, it has been effectively abrogated by the Thirteenth Amendment. It’s now dead-letter in terms of constitutionality.
We fought a war among ourselves over slavery, to correct a defect in our Founding that many of our Founders ruefully acknowledged. That the US Constitution had to at first compromise on this defect, for the sake of union, doesn’t deprive the Constitution of its status as something it’s generally best to observe.
Yes, what does a federalist believe should be done when a law is enacted that never should have been? Repeal is the correct answer, of course. This is why so much conservative support for Obamacare repeal. Even if not unconstitutional, not a proper thing for the federal government. I don’t think we have much understanding of this concept in our voting population and only slight more among our legislators.
There is no tension here, Fred. There are valid duties of the federal government. One of them is immigration rule setting and enforcement.
There is absolutely nothing confusing about how a small government conservative can support the federal government operating in one of its valid roles.
“You don’t believe that the Federal Government shouldn’t exist? How can you call yourself a Federalist?!?”
You’re confusing Federalist and Anarchist again, Fred.
He doesn’t know much about libertarianism, either.
Nice going Fred, first you imply all religious Trump supporters are hypocrites and now you imply they are racist. It will be interesting to see what you call them next.
Yes, of course, Mexicans: the entirely of the argument about immigration and the definition for citizenship concerns Mexicans. Or, the use of “Mexicans” is shorthand for calling one’s opponents dull-eyed Bubbas who soak the sheets with fever dreams of sombrero-wearing invaders?
Before you answer, let me propose a test of principle.
If you state a principle of debate, “one side can state its position with clarity and craft its own term, the other side has to respond to the characterization of its opponent.” I ask that you test it by applying the Obama Strawman Device. If you apply the Obama Strawman Device, and you are comfortable with the results, then you’ve established your principle.
Nor should it really be confusing if someone who favors increased immigration (of the legal variety) into the US nonetheless considers it the federal government’s valid duty to set immigration rules and ensure they’re enforced.
I thought marijuana had some bad effects for those under say the age of 25.
…
I was watching a Mike Rowe and Tucker Carlson interview yesterday where Mike Rowe says that the reason half the people can’t get hired is because they can’t pass a drug test.
youtube v=b1f9Gr0xAhY
I guess libertarians love drugs a lot more than conservatives dislike soul-destroying welfare. Maybe many conservatives make better libertarians than most actual libertarians.
Often it seems like many libertarians only care about one thing — drugs.
(It’s like having an argument with Charlie Sheen’s character from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.)
…
I know a local doctor who was just shot checking on his son’s pets in the middle of the day in the middle of the small town, USA. I would bet anything that he was shot because someone wanted money for drugs.
I’ve noticed this. Maybe they are the vocal ones. It’s just a shame that an admirable political view (in my opinion) gets used to promote bad behaviors.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I had it in my mind that he wrote an initial draft or something…but maybe I’m thinking of the Declaration. In any event, my point remains.
It is neither of your first two, and for sure the latter, which you say it is not.
It is an attempt by Fred to apply a first principle, that perhaps he holds and others do not. It is a useful exercise. I believe the post here is born out of a question I asked on Facebook: when does support for action by the Federal government become anti-Federalist? Fred, is his typically dry and direct fashion, said (and I paraphrase) “Well, if you support a particular set of rules for when action by the Federal government is warranted, then you could take those rules and apply them to the Fugitive Slave Act, and see if your rules would allow that particular action. For reference, the FSA of 1850 required local law enforcement to arrest suspected runaway slaves, even if those individuals were in free states. Those officials could be fined $1,000 by the Federal Government for failure to comply. To me, that is an interesting thought exercise.
Now, it’s likely that most of you are just a lot smarter than me, and you’ve thought through all of this and already have ready answers to it all, so you don’t find the exercise valuable. Or perhaps you have a knee jerk reaction to the way Fred asks questions. For me, though, I think a lot about the questions “When should a law be made? When should the Federal government trump the State government?” And it is useful to me to have a generic, principled response that can be applied to the questions, and can be brought to bear on specific issues, such as the conflict regarding marijuana laws, even this issue of sanctuary states.
How do I come down? Yes, the Federal government should have the ability to enforce their laws, but they ought not be able to coerce local officials in to enforcing their laws. That includes providing details about individuals who have broken Federal laws.
It actually seems to go the other way – People who want use use drugs call themselves libertarians, even though that’s about the only thing they’re “libertarian” on (ex. Bill Maher)
It isn’t really a question of “Can the Federal Government take care of immigration.” It is a question of “Can the Federal government require state and local officials to enforce Federal law, and punish them if they do not.” That is the central question here.
This is a common misperception. As a budding Libertarian, I am not promoting the use of drugs. I don’t think people should smoke pot, I think it is generally bad for them. I just don’t think it is the place of the government to tell them not to do it. And I really, really don’t think it is the place of the Federal government to tell them not to do it. And I really, really, really don’t want the Federales coming in to my state, where the recreational use of marijuana is legal, by the will of the voters, and enforce their laws on the subject.
Now, there is a weird phenomenon out there. It seems to me that a lot of people think that because something is legal that it must be ok to do. I never thought this was true until, after seeing an ad on TV promoting the legalization of weed, my daughter asked me “Dad, why do they want us to use drugs?” She conflated the legality of a thing, or at least the push to make the legal legal, with a push for us to do the thing. I don’t understand how that mindset gets in to the brain. Maybe it comes from the rules of the house, where the things that you don’t get in trouble for are encouraged, and the things you do get in trouble for are discouraged. I’m not sure. But that notion is just plain wrong. I mean adultery is not illegal, but nobody seems to think that it is something you should do. Even the people who it, largely know it is wrong, and has negative, long lasting consequences.
So no, we aren’t “promoting bad behaviors.” We just think people should be able to make their own decisions, even if it screws up their life. And we also don’t think anyone should be required to pay for fixing their lives, either.
I say that there is no compelling reason for the federal government to dispense federal tax revenues or borrowed money to state and local governments for law enforcement or any other state and local function except perhaps in a situation where there is some benefit accruing to the federal government as a result such as help in enforcing immigration law, a federal function. The only existing reason to dispense such monies is the stupid laws our federal legislators have passed and gotten signed by some President, most of which have little to do with Federalism.
You got this part figured out?
As long as states do not actively hinder federal law enforcement of federal laws, I have no problem with states not cooperating with federal law enforcement.
That said, when states provide welfare, Medicaid and other federal benefits to illegal aliens, they are forcing the citizens of other states to pay for their ill-considered policies. That cannot stand. If federal welfare programs were completely eliminated and left up to each state, then there would be no issue.
Yep
Fred, I don’t know if I understand your argument. Are you saying that anyone who supports any area of federal regulation must therefore also support the Fugitive Slave Act? If you believe that, then you must be saying that there is no such thing as a legitimate area of federal regulation. Is that your position? Or do you accept that in our system of federalism, there are legitimate federal laws that do not allow for states to pass contradictory laws?
If you do acknowledge that there are areas of legitimate federal supremacy, would you mind naming one and telling us how you “thread the needle” of recognizing such an area where the Supremacy Clause applies, without supporting the Fugitive Slave Act?
Just for the record, I should mention that I fully recognize how silly this argument is, but it wasn’t me who got this ball rolling.
100% agree. Right up until you said “except”. Let the State’s fund themselves, and the Feds fund themselves. None of this “I’ll give you a buck so you can take $.20, and send the rest to Detroit.”
This is an argument against welfare at a federal level. And it should be made over and over again.
Frankly, a better way to punish states that allow sanctuary cities is to cut their federal aid, and force the citizens of that state to fund the aid given to illegal immigrants.
What do you mean? Do I know how that is going to go away? Yeah. Hell will freeze over, and then it will happen. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to really cut the welfare programs at any level. Not any body. Well I do. But almost universally, when I talk to people, they have a vague idea about it until you actually start talking about specific cuts to specific programs and then it’s all “Well, now, you can’t….”
I mean, all these comments and discussions and ideas we do here on Ricochet? Meaningless. Because at the end of the day, Americans want more government, more services, more security, and they are willing to trade their freedom to get it.
For me this is easy, and I’ve said it above: ICE agents are free to come to my State and enforce immigration laws. Hell, we got a lot of migrant farm labor right here in my county, and I’m pretty sure a goodly number of them are illegal Mexicans. So come on in, enforce your laws. Fie the business the hire illegal Mexicans. Round them up and send them back to TJ. Just don’t require State, County, and City law enforcement to help you, and threaten legal action if they don’t. Again, don’t get me wrong: I want my local law enforcement to help enforce immigration law. I just don’t want them to be forced to do it by the Federal government.
Moderator Note:
PersonalizingWait–you did note who brought it up, right?