Pandering and failing to understand the Constitution…
27 July 2007 at 2:49 pm | In Constitution, Politics | Leave a CommentCongressman and logshot presidential candidate clearly needs to read a copy of the Constitution based on his recent attempt to have Congress issue a pardon.
Giuliani and Federalism…
25 July 2007 at 10:13 am | In Abortion, Constitution, Federalsim, Politics, Rudy Giuliani, pro-choice republican | Leave a CommentIt sounds like Giuliani might be the only viable candidate who has as streak of federalism running through his body.
Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions.
In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments “where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” is to apply the “principle of federalism.” Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.”
Maybe Giuliani might be end this “culture war” nonsense that has paralyzed our politics for four decades?
Federalism serves Giuliani’s political interests because it allows him to reconcile his generally moderate social views with his socially conservative party. But he’s also right that federalism can serve society’s interests by allowing “a lot of room for difference” in a diverse country.
Federalism isn’t a panacea. On regulatory issues such as global warming, both environmentalists (who want concerted national action) and business (which prefers consistent rules) often find it unsatisfactory. Nor is either side in the culture war likely to abandon its effort to impose its vision on the entire society.
But over time, federalism might drain some of the fervor from that fight by allowing both cultural conservatives and cosmopolitans to control the rules in their communities on these difficult issues — at the price of allowing the other side to do the same.
Personally I think federalism is the only way to end the culture war on the federal and state levels. If New York wants gun control and gay marriage, let them. If South Dakota wants restrictions on abortion and no gay marriage, let them.
Interventionism is about as constitutional as something can get…
17 May 2007 at 9:04 pm | In Constitution, Foreign Policy, Philosophy, Politics | Leave a CommentCongressman Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy is faulty based off the text itself and the views of its chief defender, Alexander Hamilton.
Here are some reasons why:
The Constitution vests very vague and broad powers to wage war in the hands of the Executive. This power is not defined and only seems to be limited by the power of Congress to regulate and fund the military. Beyond this, it seems once a conflict starts, the President calls the shots.
The vagueness of the war and foreign affairs powers comes from the British constitutional tradition. Where are the war powers codified in British law? They are not. The war and foreign affairs powers are vested in the Crown via over many centuries of British constitutional evolution. The only real restraint on the war power is the fact that budget bills must pass Parliament and the term limits of Parliament. Substantively, this is no different than the American Constitution.
The Constitution is imperialist by its nature. British style war powers, the power to admit new states, and the ability to acquire new lands are hallmarks of the American Constitution. These are all things you need to be an imperialist power and the United States has engaged in a form of benevolent imperialism since its founding.
The United States has almost always had an active foreign policy. Even during the time of the founders, the United States had a very active foreign policy. What do you call fighting Natives on the frontier? This was the 18th and 19th Century version of nation-building and removing oppressive regimes. Thomas Jefferson engaged in an expansionist endeavour with the Louisiana Purchase. As American stature grew, the scope of its foreign policy has grown with it. Hamilton predicted this and we truly live in the world he pictured 200 years ago.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.