My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources. First, I don't like the way my state generally does things. Utah is a drag. This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.
Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen. I went into detail about this here.
Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below. I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing. As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.
Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).
Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom. This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses. Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.
Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring. States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities. The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian. Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.
Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage). There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels. I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems. But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.
For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation. If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers. So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things. It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.
It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry. Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside. If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand. The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform. But otherwise they didn't. But now they are.
Vermont is about to create a single-payer system. California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents. This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country. The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better. Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label states rights. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label states rights. Tampilkan semua postingan
Rabu, 25 Mei 2011
Rabu, 19 Januari 2011
Constitutional Over-Correction: Extreme States' Rights
Utah's very own baby-faced tea-party senator, and self-styled Constitutional scholar, Mike Lee, recently held forth that, of all things, child labor laws are unconstitutional. I guess I'm more sad than anything. Sad because we have completely stopped thinking through issues and ideas carefully. Rhetoric rules.
The best way I can describe what is going on is with a car analogy, which I understand is worn and cliche but I am nothing if not worn and cliche. So, you are driving along on a road trip and you are eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich and you look down for a second to rearrange the wrapping for your next bite and when you look up you are drifting into oncoming traffic. The natural reaction is to jerk the wheel back. But this is how rollovers happen, by over-correction. The proper response is to course-correct more smoothly.
I will be the first to admit that there are some troubling things in America. I can fully agree that the national debt is an embarrassment and has to be dealt with. I can fully agree that the federal government needs to be tightened up and run more efficiently. We have written several times that we need to strengthen our democracy with things like term limits and reformed campaign finance laws. But the tea party is over-correcting.
Rand Paul said that he thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. Mike Lee now says that child labor laws are unconstitutional. There is a whole movement to repeal the 17th Amendment which mandates the direct election of senators. Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann appear to encourage violent reaction to a perceived tyrannous government. The list goes on, and it demonstrates how some are trying to capitalize on the tea party fervor to strip the Constitution down past its logical limits. Over-correction. We delved into some Constitutional issues before, notably here and here. Let's take a look now at the extreme states' rights issues raised by Senators Lee and Paul, and the tenthers generally.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." It also gives Congress authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Commerce Clause is the biggie. Almost all economic regulation by Congress is predicated on the Commerce Clause. The health care reform bill is a classic example. Congress has the authority to regulate the entire health insurance industry because it engages in interstate commerce. That is, people buy health insurance and move around from state to state and health insurance can be transported across state lines and so it is interstate commerce of the kind the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate.
Conservatives think this is overreaching and they point to the Tenth Amendment and argue that unless the Constitution gives explicit authority to the federal government the individual states alone have authority in that area. So, since the Constitution doesn't mention health care, it must be an area that the federal government has to stay out of and only the states can regulate. It's hard to square that with the Commerce Clause, but there you have it.
The Constitutional originalists, who have shaky historical footing to stand on, in my opinion, would like to go back to the era of the Founding Fathers where the federal government exerted almost no control over commerce, and state sovereignty was much more pronounced. Again, over-correction. As I've pointed out before, we live in a drastically different world than the one of 1787. At the time there was very little interstate commerce. It was an agrarian nation where the necessities of life were grown, made, and consumed locally. But as the nation began to industrialize and commerce started to expand beyond localities and states, the Commerce Clause suddenly began to take on immense meaning.
Now, virtually nothing we consume is not a product of interstate commerce, and it is very common, probably the norm, for a person to move to a different state at least once during their lives. These are phenomena that didn't exist at the time of Framers. States' rights, then, in a world of ultimate mobility, have much less importance. The need for the federal government to exert control over commerce and ensure uniformity, an equal footing for all states, and protections for consumers who are far removed from the production of the things they purchase, not to mention the ability of large multi-state and multi-national corporations to abuse their power, is more important now than in 1787.
The tenthers like Lee and Paul who want the federal government to relinquish most of its authority over interstate commerce to the states simply don't understand, or willfully misrepresent, the complexities of the modern world. Look, I agree that the federal government has done some overreaching and over-regulating, and I'm happy that the Pres. Obama is tackling that issue. I can understand the desire to have government de-centralized and closer to the people. We can certainly do some rearranging in those areas.
But we are still the United States of America. One big, complicated nation. We need certain minimum protections and regulations that protect all citizens equally and tackle problems that are much, much bigger than individual states. The Constitution gives the government power to do that, no matter what bizarre things Senator Lee has to say about child labor laws.
The best way I can describe what is going on is with a car analogy, which I understand is worn and cliche but I am nothing if not worn and cliche. So, you are driving along on a road trip and you are eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich and you look down for a second to rearrange the wrapping for your next bite and when you look up you are drifting into oncoming traffic. The natural reaction is to jerk the wheel back. But this is how rollovers happen, by over-correction. The proper response is to course-correct more smoothly.
I will be the first to admit that there are some troubling things in America. I can fully agree that the national debt is an embarrassment and has to be dealt with. I can fully agree that the federal government needs to be tightened up and run more efficiently. We have written several times that we need to strengthen our democracy with things like term limits and reformed campaign finance laws. But the tea party is over-correcting.
Rand Paul said that he thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. Mike Lee now says that child labor laws are unconstitutional. There is a whole movement to repeal the 17th Amendment which mandates the direct election of senators. Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann appear to encourage violent reaction to a perceived tyrannous government. The list goes on, and it demonstrates how some are trying to capitalize on the tea party fervor to strip the Constitution down past its logical limits. Over-correction. We delved into some Constitutional issues before, notably here and here. Let's take a look now at the extreme states' rights issues raised by Senators Lee and Paul, and the tenthers generally.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." It also gives Congress authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Commerce Clause is the biggie. Almost all economic regulation by Congress is predicated on the Commerce Clause. The health care reform bill is a classic example. Congress has the authority to regulate the entire health insurance industry because it engages in interstate commerce. That is, people buy health insurance and move around from state to state and health insurance can be transported across state lines and so it is interstate commerce of the kind the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate.
Conservatives think this is overreaching and they point to the Tenth Amendment and argue that unless the Constitution gives explicit authority to the federal government the individual states alone have authority in that area. So, since the Constitution doesn't mention health care, it must be an area that the federal government has to stay out of and only the states can regulate. It's hard to square that with the Commerce Clause, but there you have it.
The Constitutional originalists, who have shaky historical footing to stand on, in my opinion, would like to go back to the era of the Founding Fathers where the federal government exerted almost no control over commerce, and state sovereignty was much more pronounced. Again, over-correction. As I've pointed out before, we live in a drastically different world than the one of 1787. At the time there was very little interstate commerce. It was an agrarian nation where the necessities of life were grown, made, and consumed locally. But as the nation began to industrialize and commerce started to expand beyond localities and states, the Commerce Clause suddenly began to take on immense meaning.
Now, virtually nothing we consume is not a product of interstate commerce, and it is very common, probably the norm, for a person to move to a different state at least once during their lives. These are phenomena that didn't exist at the time of Framers. States' rights, then, in a world of ultimate mobility, have much less importance. The need for the federal government to exert control over commerce and ensure uniformity, an equal footing for all states, and protections for consumers who are far removed from the production of the things they purchase, not to mention the ability of large multi-state and multi-national corporations to abuse their power, is more important now than in 1787.
The tenthers like Lee and Paul who want the federal government to relinquish most of its authority over interstate commerce to the states simply don't understand, or willfully misrepresent, the complexities of the modern world. Look, I agree that the federal government has done some overreaching and over-regulating, and I'm happy that the Pres. Obama is tackling that issue. I can understand the desire to have government de-centralized and closer to the people. We can certainly do some rearranging in those areas.
But we are still the United States of America. One big, complicated nation. We need certain minimum protections and regulations that protect all citizens equally and tackle problems that are much, much bigger than individual states. The Constitution gives the government power to do that, no matter what bizarre things Senator Lee has to say about child labor laws.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)