While I have recently questioned the discipline of Mayor Giuliani on the stump as a presidential candidate and suggested that he is perhaps failing to allow his campaign staff to challenge his policy positions such that they can be forged into a strong and finished product that can withstand constant media scrutiny, this federalism dodge, as reported by?Marc Ambinder of The Hotline,?seems like precisely the kind of weak advice a campaign?hack who doesn’t know much about issues would propose. In this case, the Mayor should have ignored the counsel. The answer isn’t to go from the extreme of off the cuff to the other of punting; the answer is to take private time to lay out, important issue by important issue, a comprehensive, coherent, and consistent position in every area before hitting the hustings. This is a disingenuous pouring of fuel on the fire.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
What’s so wrong about federalism? That’s what supposed-savior Fred Thompson is all about.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
David,
Federalism is neither good nor bad. It is a neutral tool. If used when appropriate, it is good. If used when it isn’t appropriate, it is bad. The trick is knowing the difference.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
There’s nothing wrong with federalism, DB. However, there seems to be a pattern emerging with Rudy lately:
Terri Schiavo
Romney said it was wrong for the legislature to try and interfere. McCain helped lead the charge for the legislature to do something. And Giuliani… well, he has some kind of position (or positions) on the issue, but he tied himself in so many knots trying to express it nobody can tell where he stands.
SC abortion law
J-Mac, Romney, and Huck all came out in favor of the law. Rudy says, “Uh, leave it to the states to decide.” Translation: “Heck no, I don’t agree with this law, but I can’t tell anyone that.”
Confederate flag issue
McCain’s stance is clear now (and changed from 2000): the confederate flag should not be flown. Rudy says: uh, leave it to the states to decide.
Slavery Apologies
This latest one is one that should have been a no-brainer, but once again Rudy decides he can’t risk ticking off some part of the electorate. When asked whether or not we should apologize for slavery (a question whose only proper answer would have to be, “Why should we, we don’t have any slaves,”), he said, “Uh, leave that to the states to decide.”
What?!? The Giuliani campaign is becoming more incoherent as time goes on. Whatever happened to this strong, decisive leader we were told we would see? The one who’s not afraid to stand up and take positions on issues? The one who doesn’t mince his words? The bold, courageous hero? Seems like a bit too much waffling/hedging/mincing/avoiding for my tastes…
April 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I think federalism is fine when it’s used as a means to keep the states more involved in the decision making processes of the nation. And when it’s advanced as a means to contain the powers of the national government to their constitutionally intended uses (we have, for instance, obscenely broad powers under the commerce clause currently). But when it’s used to dodge issues, it’s meaningless. For instance, those who oppose a Federal Marriage Amendment on federalism grounds (I oppose simply because I’m not particularly against gay marriage) are misusing the principle of federalism. Federalism is intended to make the states more involved. Constitutional amendments are, by their very nature, intimately bound up in the Democratic process at all levels (constitutional conventions, state legislatures, etc). That’s not to say that there isn’t a certain elegance to the flexibility that state by state by decisons create. But unless we’re going to oppose national solutions in all situations, we have to acknowledge that when we use federalism to oppose things like constitutional amendments, what we’re really saying is “I don’t feel strongly enough about this particular issue to believe there’s one right solution for everyone”. And whatever that is, it’s certainly not federalism.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
If the right is not expressly stated in the Constitution, it is left to the states.
Flag flying is not a fundamental right, thus – it is better left to the states.
Slavery apologies is just a political game.
Did you guys forget Rudy graduated with honors from NYU, he probably is not taking advise from a political hack. He is not a puppet, he can tell if a hack’s idea is good or not.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Not to mention, presidential politics is not new to him. I lost count how many different Presidents he has worked for.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Not to mention, at least it’s a nice bresh of fresh air of someone in favor of state’s right after the ever expanding power of the Federal government.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
The problem with federalism is that it is no panacea. Certain issues are of a federal nature and should not and cannot be thrust on the states. And when misapplied, federalism is clearly a dodge of responsibility.
We have a United States Constitution and a Second Amendment, therefore the answer to gun control most certainly is not to have different standards for different localities. The Second Amendment cannot be applied regionally.
We have a United States Constitution and a Full Faith and Credit Clause, therefore the answer to gay marriage most certainly is not to let the states decide because one rogue state will force all the others to recognize marriages between those of the same sex (as is the case with common law marriage currently).
We have a federal Hyde Amendment statute that prohibits the federal government from subsidizing abortion, therefore it most certainly makes no sense to claim you support it and want the states to subsidize abortion instead because it is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution under Roe and Casey (which is unfortunately true, at least for now); it is unconstitutional to require states to exclusively pay for federal programs.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Mike B,
That’s an extremely limited and, I think, flawed interpretation of the constitution only held by only held by one Supreme Court justice (to my knowledge), Hugo Black, ever. I think a better interpretation is, if a right is not expressly mentioned in the constitution, or thought to have been protected at common law (when the constitution was drafted), it’s left to the states. Thus, you have decisions like Texas v. Johnson (which I’ve actually never read to be honest), where Scalia and Thomas disagree. Because clearly flag-burning wasn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution, but whether or not it was protected at common law and thought to be a part of free speech, is debateable.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Sorry, Scalia and Reinquist I meant to say.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
ATTENTION EVERYONE. PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY
When you go through a monster machine, a torture chamber, like Rudy did, and fight tooth and nail, like Rudy did (and WON), you develop a sensitivity to the other side and your adversaries to a certain extent. I am speaking of the New York City Council. I think he is doing a pretty good darn job of keeping the ultra-liberal off kilter, as he did when he was mayor.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
(that would be, the City Council, of New York)
April 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“I think he is doing a pretty good darn job of keeping the ultra-liberal off kilter.”
I’d be oft-kilter too if I was an ultra-liberal and the Republican front-runner kept on agreeing with me on everything.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
April 12th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
To butress Mike in Comment #5:
Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights:
“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.”
I am sorry that some analysts think this is a dodge. I am also sorry that the tenth amendment seems to be considered less serious than the others Constitutional amendments. I, though, happen to like it.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Karlub, the question is not whether all powers and rights not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people (although I think your view is forgetting that last ‘or’). It’s whether the Constitution delegates common law rights understood at the time to the United States. It’s the ninth amendment that seems to confer those rights. Those would not be included among the things the tenth amendment then extends to states.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
The 10th Amendment is one of the most overlooked amendments in the Constitution… frankly, I think we need to have more exertion of 10th amendment rights — especially in areas like farming, education, etc.
However, Rudy was not asked to make federal policy on these issues. He was not asked what he would do about them if he was President. He was simply asked his opinion on them. And he evidently has none.
McCain does. Romney does. Huckabee does. Where’s Rudy’s bold and courageous leadership if he ducks questions that the other candidates are answering forthright? That’s the issue here.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
HeavyM:
Actually, as an example, I think its pretty damned bold of him to say South Carolinians should be free to do whatever they want with the Confederate battle flag.
To paraphrase Rush and Ayn Rand, choosing not to inject your personal opinion irrelevantly into local issues *is* a position.
Jeremy:
My reading of the tenth amendment may be awfully Federalist by today’s standards, and I may be misunderstanding your remarks. But given the the fact our Founders spoke of the United States with plural modifiers I think it is safe to say their general intent was to confer legislation on unenumerated rights to the people primarily at the state level through local legislation, or preferably no legislation at all. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that a reading of the individual constitutions of the original thirteen states would confirm this.
Of course, I’m a fan of the Ninth Amendment as well. Perhaps this is just a po-tay-to, po-tah-to situation.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
A bigger constitutional issue than the 10th Amendment is the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that the Congress uses to legislate in areas it should be staying out of. Slowly but surely a more conservative United States Supreme Court is trying to scale such congressional overreaching back.
Kavon needs to recruit a true conservative constitutional scholar as an additional “friend of the site” – someone like Professor Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine Law School – to speak to these issues.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Republius:
It all does indeed get tricky, but I generally break out my Robert Bork on these issues.
(Commerce clause issues) + (expansive view of the Bill of Rights – the ninth and tenth amendments) + (incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th amendment) = crazy ass judges + presidedential candidates expected to have positions on a gazillion local and social issues that have nothing to do with the job of the presidency as described in the constitution.
April 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Ummm…Giuliani got elected as a Republican in an environment where Democrats outnumber
Republicans by 5 to 1. While mayor he got most of his agenda enacted with a 51 seat City
Council comprised of 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans. I would venture he knows a little about
bare knuckle politics, and I would venture further that McCain and Romney will not know what hit the
come oh, say, the couple months before the primaries.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Peter, you say that knowing that Romney governed with an 85% Democratic legislature, or not knowing that fact? Neither makes you look authoritative.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I have previously posted that I wonder if Giuliani’s electoral success in New York City cuts more against him than for him as a GOP presidential candidate in the sense that even the Republicans in the Big Apple are moderate to liberal. The fact of the matter may be that Giuliani has never appealed to or had to appeal to conservatives in his New York City elections.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:02 am
” The fact of the matter may be that Giuliani has never appealed to or had to appeal to conservatives in his New York City elections.”
Republius- Fahgettaboutit. You just plain dont know what you are talking about. Being a New Yorker and born & raised there, I can tell you that Giuliani was the shining republican on a horse for us. (not sure where I got that from) and he was for both conservatives and republicans a savior after years upon years of democratic controlled bureacracy and socialism!