July 14, 2019

"Of course, it is possible that recent liberal praise for constitutional constraints on federal power will prove to be an example of 'fair-weather federalism'..."

"... the tendency of both left and right to rely on federalism whenever their opponents control the White House, only to jettison it when they themselves are in power. Conservatives, for instance, used constitutional federalism as a tool against the Obama administration but often ignore it under Trump. But there may be a trend here that goes beyond short-term partisanship. Liberals and conservatives alike can benefit from stronger constraints on federal power. Each party can gain from protecting local diversity and experimentation, and from the insurance federalism provides in times when its opponent hold the reins of power in Washington. Left and right can agree on the need for substantial constitutional limits on federal power, even if they differ on exactly how tight those limits should be."

Writes Ilya Somin in "How liberals learned to love federalism/The left was skeptical of giving power to the states. Until the Trump era" (WaPo).

This is the subject I wrote about for 30 years when I was in the law professor game.

115 comments:

Mike Sylwester said...

Arguing for states' rights is racist.

Danno said...

I too like the idea of the fifty states being laboratories for trying different policies.

iowan2 said...

Each party can gain from protecting local diversity and experimentation, and from the insurance federalism provides

Like abortion and homosexual marriage?

Lincolntf said...

I am writing a term paper (Final Exam) for a Broadcast Law and Ethics class, and it needs to be submitted today by 3 PM. Anyone have any trenchant thoughts about the Supreme Court Maryland "Peace Cross" decision? My paper is pretty dull thus far.

Temujin said...

I'm WaPo blocked from reading the link. But it seems that you were on target 30 years ago writing about this. If I'm not mistaken, this is the key to our constitutionally limited Republic. That the Federal government is specifically delineated powers listed in the Constitution. All other powers and oversight not listed fall to the states. We would be much safer, much happier, and much more creative in our governing if we stuck to that.

50 separate labs for working on solving problems would open up a lot of eyes.

But, after generations have grown up thinking that all directives must come from Washington, and even worse, that Washington is there to protect you, it will be hard to remove the tentacles of the Federal Government from our lives. Too many people make too much money on the current system.

For some of us, we hoped Trump would be the first step in removing some of those tentacles. I'm not sure we'll get another chance.

Mike Sylwester said...

I am writing a term paper (Final Exam) for a Broadcast Law and Ethics class, and it needs to be submitted today by 3 PM

Write that no term-paper deadline should be on a Sunday, because the Bible decrees that Sundays are days of rest.

rhhardin said...

Federal power is limited by federal judges appointed by the other guy.

henry said...

Sadly the Supreme Court appears to lean the other way. The decision on sales tax the Supremes located tax nexus at the consumer’s address for e-commerce. This is backwards from a federalism perspective. Roads (and WIFI) travel two directions. Putting tax nexus at the seller’s address also taxes everything— and allows local tax policies to compete against each other (plus much simpler for small business compliance).

traditionalguy said...

The States do not have the Military power. Game over. This has been rubbed into the States faces over and over . The Federal Government gets off on displays of its arbitrary exercises of power to do totally useless and silly destructive things.

You can blame Lincoln, Grant , Sherman, Sheridan , Butler, and Thaddeus Stevens for developing that style. They justified it by fighting eternal white racism charges. Nothing has changed.

The mission of Trump has been to re-claim that Federal Government power for Americans and not allow it to remain sold to foreign governments for cash. See, Trump's inaugural speech.

Lincolntf said...

Mike Sylwester, I tried that approach last semester, didn't go my way. It's a hybrid class, half in-person/half online, and the system the school uses, "Blackboard", is thoroughly unforgiving. One second late, and the assignment is rejected, you get a Zero.

gilbar said...

Of course, it is possible that recent liberal praise for constitutional constraints on federal power will prove to be an example of 'fair-weather federalism'..."

Of course, it is possible that that the writer's definition of 'possible' is:
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY

traditionalguy said...

To see what controls the keys to Federal power, read/listen to the new book, Justice on Trial. That's about the no holds bar battle for the last SCOTUS seat.

And where is RBG's look alike double today? She is not seen in public.

MikeR said...

While it is certainly true that liberals believe in federalism for issues where they disagree with Trump, I see absolutely no evidence that they have taken the lesson to heart. Is there a leftist anywhere who opposes the Green New Deal because, even though it has policies he or she likes, it is a bad idea to impose his views top-down on the whole country?

Craig Howard said...

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Kevin said...

"Of course, it is possible that recent liberal praise for constitutional constraints on federal power will prove to be an example of 'fair-weather federalism'..."

“The chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that her signature Green New Deal was not really about saving the planet after all.

In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aoc-chief-of-staff-confirms-green-new-deal-was-not-really-about-the-climate

gspencer said...

"... the tendency of both left and right to rely on federalism whenever . . ."

If the Constitution were obeyed to the written words*, fedgov would be one-tenth its present size.

* To take but one example - Executive Orders and ruling-making by federal agencies. Article I, section 1 states it clearly, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

"All" is an absolute. All law-making authority is in Congress; meaning, in no other. And the idea that Congress has the unstated power to delegate its law-making authority runs counter to the very thesis of self-government. The people didn't give Congress any express power to delegate. Ruling otherwise, which the courts have done, has striped the people of holding those elected accountable. Federal agencies have become realms of their own.

Henry said...

Left and right can agree on the need for substantial constitutional limits on federal power, even if they differ on exactly how tight those limits should be.

Did he follow that busing argument?

Hagar said...

I don't think the current left wants the states to have any power either. They are more like anarchists.

If you want the states to have power, return the power to tax for all but the essential needs of the federal government to the states.

Lots of ruck with that idea!

Bruce Hayden said...

I am a bit cynical here. Somin has been a broken record over at Volokh esp this last year or so. Whatever the Trump Administration wants to do, he has an article out the next day explaining why they can’t. I used to read his Volokh articles, because they were fairly interesting. But that has not been the case for better than a year. He sounds so venally partisan in his writing any more that I fully expect him now to completely flip when the Democrats retake the White House.

I'm Full of Soup said...

He is delusional if he thinks libs will revert back to states rights. If they did, would we get rid of fed student loan programs, free school breakfasts and lunches, the illegal DACA exec order by Obama, etc?

TJM said...

We need sanctuary states where abortion is banned and gay marriage abrogated. Seems fair to me since the libtard states ignore federal immigration law.

Temujin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"often ignore it under Trump"

Which conservatives "ignore" federalism in which cases "under Trump"? I call BS.

The underlying problem for conservatives is that progs treat the living Constitution, like anything else in their pursuit of total power, as a mere tool. Rules and procedures and "constraints" and texts--like, 100 years old, dude!--don't mean a thing. But then should conservatives cling to traditional respect for text-based rules, most likely in vain, or take the Somin option of becoming just as instrumental, just as focused on results, as progs, with at least occasional success likely?

Game theory hasn't figured out an equilibrium solution for a situation where one of the players changes the very rules of the game at will.

tim in vermont said...

I think that New York State going after Trump and his family personally, searching for crimes where none are apparent in the hopes of punishing him for beating the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua in an election really stretches the idea of federalism and gets into banana republic stuff.

Narayanan said...

,,,Anyone have any trenchant thoughts about the Supreme Court Maryland "Peace Cross" decision? My paper is pretty dull thus far.
-_----

Can the dead have any voice in how they are to be remembered and honored?

Or who will give voice to the dead?

You may not have time to read Mountains of Mourning.

Do so later.

Hagar said...

...when the Democrats retake the White House.

Could happen. Most people today are unaware that Franklin Roosevelt originally ran on a platform of "economy in government, states' rights, and disentanglement from foreign alliances."
The Republican Party then was the "big tent" party with the rebellious "prairie populists," etc., and Herbert Hoover, the world's leading bleeding heart liberal, arguing for increased centralized federal power to manage the Great Depression.

So could we see another great switcheroo today? Qui vivra, verra.

Wince said...

That should be “fair whether federalism”.

“Fair” based upon whether or not your party is the one in power.

mesquito said...

Remember when Mrs Obama was the boss of all American school lunches?

Narayanan said...

Individualism is the only ism worth adopting, upholding and championing if you value your life.

All other isms are by and for second-handers >>> to choose someone is to be sacrificed

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The left was skeptical of giving power to the states.

Giving power to the states?

Giving power to the states?!?

Giving power to the states?!?!?

Someone just failed ConLaw 101

Howard said...

Politicians are hypocritical, Shock Horror

Bob Boyd said...

It seems to me our rulers have gone beyond expanding the definition of their constitutional powers.
Now they are subbing out activities the federal government is specifically proscribed from engaging in to the private sector.

Howard said...

Auntie Trump: Dowager Humpess of Chappaqua works better

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

KATIE COURIC AND GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS DINED WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN AFTER HE WAS BRANDED A SEX OFFENDER.

and that.

buwaya said...

Federalism is a variant of subsidiarity, which is an extremely conservative concept.

Unity and uniformity of law, culture, society and political power is the "liberal" conception, in all its forms. Any liberal backing for such devolution of powers can only be episodic, tactical, short term. It simply cannot be adopted by the liberal side in any contest when the liberals have the upper hand, as it is fundamental to them. And by liberal I mean every centralizing state, from Louis XIV's minister Colbert to the Italian irredentists to the Soviet Union to the EU. And of course the natural tendency of the US government and its appendages.

The conservative side, as usual, is the inherently anarchic, particularist, organic (as per Burke), and historically local. This is the world where social arrangements "just grew", with no system, as they always do. The default, governed least, and disparate.

This is a much more general, and much older conflict than what has gone on in America. Its probably worth a broader study, even for Americans.

Howard said...

100% wrong buwaya puti: the US is a liberal democratic republic, full stop. The structure is designed to be flexible and to protect the nation from conservatives on the right and the left.

Narayanan said...

@ Buwaya: was Luther advocating for subsidiarity or against

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger mesquito said...

"Remember when Mrs Obama was the boss of all American school lunches?"

Some things are too important to be left to the plebeians.

It's a pity Mrs. Obama didn't create a 5 year plan for school lunches.

The Godfather said...

@Althouse: Somin made essentially the same argument in Volokh yesterday, and you can read it for free .

Ralph L said...

Supreme Court Maryland "Peace Cross"

Wasn't that in Prince George County? Since princes are forbidden in America, yet the name remains, why not crosses?

Josephbleau said...

In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

What interest, strategic or tactical, is advanced by this admission? It is pure hubris.

Ralph L said...

The Left keeps finding out the hard way that turning one state hard left will sink it relative to the rest of the country. California attracts all the bums while losing its middle class and industry to other states.

Browndog said...

Blogger rhhardin said...

Federal power is limited by federal judges appointed by the other guy.


Nailed it.

stevew said...

"Of course, it is possible that recent liberal praise for constitutional constraints on federal power will prove to be an example of 'fair-weather federalism'.."

Possible? They are politicians practicing politics attempting to possess and exert political power. The principle of Federalism is not, for them, a principled position. This is true for the majority of Republicans and Democrats

I'm just a citizen, with no particular expertise on the Constitution and Federalism, but this seems to me to be the single most brilliant construction created by the founders of the United States. No better system has ever been devised for a nation so large in geography and vast in population. What should an individual, or group of individuals, in, say, Massachusetts have to say about how people in Ohio and Iowa and Texas and California conduct their lives?

Michael K said...

Article I, section 1 states it clearly, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

They were assuming a Congress in which both Houses were sane.

Hagar said...

"Federal power" and "state power" are theoretical concepts.
"My power" is for realz.

buwaya said...

The US was not defined as "liberal" upon its founding.
Nor indeed was its ideology defined, then.
These were theoretical concepts at best, introduced and argued over almost independent of the reality on the ground.

The more universal meanings of "liberal" was that in common use in the 19th century, when it became au courant. The latter-day US meaning of liberal indeed is closer to the 19th century reality outside the Anglosphere bubble.

JackWayne said...

The Constitution mandates a Republican Form for every State. And then fails to define Republican Form. So States as laboratories is complete progressive crap. That idea grants the federal government and States the power to impose laws that are not “Republican”. And them Somin goes all in on stupidity by pretending that Federalism is a defined concept. It’s just as defined as Republican Form. And just as defined as Limited Government. Or Enumerated Powers. All those concepts are mostly bullshit.

Gahrie said...

So..if Althouse came across a group of Progressives arguing in favor of states' rights, would she break into tears?

Howard said...

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanisation and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] United States

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary or feudal interests such as the nobility, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, the established church and the aristocratic army officers.[40]

Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the Declaration of Independence changed Locke's "life, liberty and property" to the more socially liberal "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".[4] As the United States grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and during the term of its first populist President, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.[41] Freedom, according to classical liberals, was maximised when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward the economy.[42]

Gahrie said...

The Constitution mandates a Republican Form for every State.

This may seem pedantic, but it is kind of important in today's politics. The Constitution mandates a "republican" form of government, not a "Republican" one.

buwaya said...

As always, in order to personally attempt to define what is not "liberal", in an American context especially, one can do no better than Russell Kirk, "The Conservative Mind". Kirk does not exactly find answers, but he asks the right questions.

Kirk tried his best, but its inherently difficult to lock down a null-concept concept, as conservatism is.

The Catholic church, in the course of its long war against liberalism, at least managed to define subsidiarity, as a sort of desiderata anyway.

John henry said...

No, Mike.

The Bible declares the Sabbath (7th day, when God rested) to a the day of rest.

Sunday, "The Lord's Day" celebrates the resurrection and the first day of our renewed, eternal, lifein Christ.

The Bible is quite clear. Sunday is not the Sabbath.

John Henry

Gahrie said...

Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the Declaration of Independence changed Locke's "life, liberty and property" to the more socially liberal "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

He didn't make that change to promote social liberty, he did it so that pro-slavery forces wouldn't be able to use a "right to property" to defend slavery.

John henry said...

The Bible is quite clear that Sunday is a holy day to be celebrated.

Just not the Sabbath

John Henry

Rusty said...

Constitutional republic , Howard.
And liberal in the 18th century idea of educated enlightenment. Not your fascist definition.

Narayanan said...

Could it be that Founders defined Republican form of Government in the most obvious place to look for it!

_______
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
___'_‘

buwaya said...

Howard,

You commit the sin of taxonomy.
Which is an excessive reliance on definition of terms. In this case an exceedingly narrow definition, and an ahistorical one besides, that also ignores the larger structures of power.

Your definition of liberalism does not explain the Risorgimento, a liberal project by definition, nor the suppression of the Spanish fueros, nor the overthrow of the Brazilian empire, nor for that matter Shays rebellion.

John henry said...

It is The United "STATES" not the United Provinces.

I would suggest that any discussion begin with the definition of the word "state". As defined today but especially as understood in 1776-1800.

the United States was never conceived as a "country" any more than the European union is.

It is why we used to say "these" united states instead of "the" United States.

John Henry

buwaya said...

In Europe the main resistance to liberalism actually came from wherever there was a free peasantry. Or a peasantry that was able to independently resist.

Thats why the Spanish civil wars of the 19th century are interesting. The Carlists were as traditionalist, as conservative as could be, fighting for God, country (defined as their little bit of it), and King. Their actual leaders were their own chosen men, not aristocrats or the pretender to the throne, or the church.

In Spain, for a while in the 19th century, there was open, clarifying warfare between conservatism and liberalism. In the rest of Europe liberalism prevailed in a form of a soft coup among the elite.

The modern view of the 19th century is defined by a liberal consensus, which consensus was not the case at the time. It is a misleading view of the world, leaving out as it does well over half of it.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Howard @714/19, 9:05 AM: “...the US is liberal democratic republic, full stop.”

Incorrect. The USA is a constitutionally-limited federal republic.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Jack Wayne @7/14/19, 9:37 AM: “All those concepts are bullshit.”

Words mean things. They’re not concepts. I don’t understand what is vague or ambiguous about any of the terms you mention. If we had to define every word, our Constitution — which is the shortest in text and is the longest-enduring — would be like one of these modern monstrosities like the EU Constitution. And that’s why Originalism is important, because we should gauge what these words meant at the time of the Founding, it what they’ve morphed into today.

buwaya said...

The fundamentals of the American phenomenon are not in any documents.
In truth the whole thing stems from the events of April 19, 1775, and the nature of the society that created those events. Everything subsequently depended on that society, on that spontaneous movement. Every notable person in the history books was simply someone who tried to put himself at the head of what was already there.

The leaders, the thinkers, the documents, the political philosophies, the centuries of manifestos and commentary - they are a superstructure, nearly meaningless, as we have seen, through innumerable failed attempts to transplant the superstructure onto very different societies.

Its no surprise, either, that this (older edition) American superstructure does not suit modern American society, as too little of that of April 19 1775 is left.

buwaya said...

Words are tools, often inadequate to the job one wants to do.

Gahrie said...

the United States was never conceived as a "country" any more than the European union is.

It is why we used to say "these" united states instead of "the" United States.


The civil war changed all that for better or worse. (I generally think worse)

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

buwaya @7/14/19, 10:35 AM: “Words are tools, often inadequate to the job one wants to do.”

True, but they’re the best we have. I view them as progress, not perfection.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

buwaya @7/14/19, 10;34 AM:

Our National Charters (Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights) captured the spirit of April 19, 1775 pretty well, actually. That we may not have followed the example of those brave men to the fullest is certainly a reflection of our character and the passage of time. Our National Charters have fine an excellent job of anchoring us for 243 years, methinks. And I think the “superstructure” can fit modern American culture, too, if we have the courage to allow it and pursue it with vigor. Better than AOC’s reliance on Marx’s anachronistic laziness. She fears the future and seeks control. We embrace possibility and trust in the better angels of our nature, all the while exclaiming “Death to tyrants!”

JackWayne said...

Ignatius, how much longer would the Constitution be if there was a section that defined certain phrases like “necessary and proper”, “enumerated powers”, “ general welfare”, Republican Form” and the like? As for Originalism that is simply bullshit. It is the opposite side of the Humpty Dumpty coin of Living Document. Go read the Anti-Federalists and see if they agreed on any of the “original” words. Lastly, how do you think we got to the unlimited government we have if the sparse Constitution we have did not grant too much latitude to flawed humans to interpret the intent?

buwaya said...

I dont think those documents "captured" much.

Rather, they rationalized a lot. They committed Howards sin above, of taxonomy, on a much more professional level, but they don't really "get" it either. Some people make a fetish of words, some distrust them, and I am in the camp of distrust.

Did your charters anchor you, or were you inherently anchored, and are those charters no more than tribal symbols? I think the latter. Symbols, like flags and mottoes and books, are important, but they aren't reality.

n.n said...

Progress is monotonic. Some of the greatest leaps have been anthropogenic and progressive with dysfunctional and catastrophic conclusions. #HateLovesAborton #PrinciplesMatter

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left doesn't give a shit about Federalism, and barely knows what is.

Somin is a real smart guy, an intellectual egghead, detached from the common man. He writes well, though.

Otto said...

MAGA

buwaya said...

Your society changed under the superstructure.
You are no longer the same people that your constitution was written to suit.
Your actual government structure, the departments and bureaucracies and their powers and the attachments to extra-governmental interests are vastly dufferent than whatever it is your founding documents were intended for.

In a very important sense your founding documents and the civic system they define are, when taught to children, outright lies. They are not how the world works, and they are not the rules that the authorities intend to make them live by.

Also, the arguments of the Federalists vs anti-Federalists are interesting as a matter of education, but does this argument matter? So much of this all is either entertainment or ritual.

Howard said...

Buwaya puti's sin is detachment, biological and mental, from the US and the North in general. The wider world wants to be American, but not deplorable. The world is becoming more classically liberal while every measure of progress is increasing in spite of the conservative social Luddites like yourself

Michael K said...

The world is becoming more classically liberal while every measure of progress is increasing in spite of the conservative social Luddites like yourself<

And that must be the reason they are all fleeing to get here.

Howard, you need a new script.

Michael K said...

Your society changed under the superstructure.
You are no longer the same people that your constitution was written to suit.
Your actual government structure, the departments and bureaucracies and their powers and the attachments to extra-governmental interests are vastly dufferent than whatever it is your founding documents were intended for.


I agree to some degree. The military has been trying to adjust from the "Industrial Warfare" model to one drive more by technology. They (especially West Point) are having trouble getting the new version of youth to adjust to the requirements of duty, honor, country, but it is still necessary to have a functional military. The PC world of Women's Rights has resulted in ship collisions and sailors' deaths because two female deck officers on watch were not speaking to each other.

We have to find a way to make it work or we have anarchy, which is all we get from Howard's politics of all against all.

We have a structure, which has worked fairly well. It is no time to be constructing the airplane during takeoff.

buwaya said...

I can only be biologically detached up to a point, Howard. My wife is qualified for the DAR, being a direct descendant of several who served in the Revolution, one a Virginia Colonel no less. And others who took to the Oregon trail, and we still have things of theirs that were carried from Ohio on a Conestoga wagon. So our kids have an immutable connection, and they know it.

Your history, in any case, has been a great interest of mine since forever, perhaps as we, 10,000 miles away, were educated in English from American texts, full of that older version of your civic religion.

As for distance and perspective at least an attempt at disinterest, I recommend it.

Amadeus 48 said...

People on the left view the world through a set of beer goggles like no other.

The struggle quickly evolved from national over-regulation under Obama (You WILL conform. Mississippi is just like New York) to the assertion of state sovereignty on things like, to take a current example, enforcement of immigration laws. California is in its own little universe ignoring $1 trillion in unfunded pension obligations. Modern monetary theory doesn't apply if you don't create the reserve currency. Next up: California State Currency, with the bear on one side and Pelosi on the million dollar note; Tom Steyer on the $5 million note, and Kamala Harris on the $10 million note. As good as gold.

But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Who can forget the spectacle of the Democrats and the media (BIRM) getting their knickers in a twist when Trump said he wanted to see what happened in the election before he would accept the results. Then we had the election, and the Dems and the media (BIRM) are still refusing to accept the results.

Somewhere in DC, Barack Obama is shaking his head and saying to himself, "I can't believe I threw in with such a bunch of idiots." Well, President Obama, there is still time. You can join the Trumpian GOP. Welcome aboard.



Heatshield said...

The best and most accountable government is local government. Federal power is too overwhelming, too bureaucratic and too often abused. Federalism is a good way to move power back to the states, but even that is not enough. Too many states are dominated by a large liberal city that dictates how the rural areas (about which they know nothing) are run. Pushing power down and de-centralizing it is generally good.

buwaya said...

I just took the kids to visit our family cannon.

Its an 1885 Ordonez 15cm coast artillery piece, now sitting half-shattered in San Francisco's Presidio. My ancestor was a Spanish artillery officer who commanded the guns of Fort Santiago, when this piece was installed. He died the year before the Americans took Manila, and they took this one of his guns as a monument to that.

Not everyone has a family cannon.

narciso said...

On the contrary, you can only be detached if you arent paying attention.

narciso said...

My family name would be arteaga, If that name rings a bell, it's not my surname. The Cuban constitution of 1940 was a fever dream, which could not be fulfilled.

JAORE said...

Of course it is fair weather Federalism. The right side is finally learning NOT to let the left swap the rules back and forth.

buwaya said...

Cardinal Arteaga?

Good Basque name.

buwaya said...

We played "La Paloma" to the Ordonez gun.
It has heard "La Paloma" before.

buwaya said...

The reason that gun is, shattered, in San Francisco's Presidio, and not intact in Fort Santiago, is because of simple military and economic facts, not declarations and constitutions.

Jim at said...

Conservatives, for instance, used constitutional federalism as a tool against the Obama administration but often ignore it under Trump.

Since I don't give WaPo any clicks, did the author cite any specific examples?

John henry said...

Hagar,

Hoover may have been a bleeding heart liberal but he put his money where his mouth was. One of the most successful international entrepreneurs of his day, probably on the scale of Bill Gates, he retired in august 1914. He spent the next 6 years at great physical risk preventing 20 million Europeans from starving to death.

He spent the next 8 as perhaps the best secty of commerce ever with lots of achievements to his name.

Not a very good president though far from as bad as fdr and his new deal fascists painted him.

Lots of good bios. I particularly recommend Vernon Kellogg's though it only covers up to 1920 or so. Kellogg worked with him on food relief.

His memoirs, especially the first 2 volumes up through a few days after his presidency are terrific. V3 is ok but was edited from his papers and drafts.

Hoover was also one helluva good writer. Not as prolific as t. Roosevelt but just as good.

John Henry



Amadeus 48 said...

"The best and most accountable government is local government."

I used to think that, but 49 years living in Chicago have demonstrated to me that local government can be run for the benefit of government employees and stakeholders, and that the citizens most affected by dishonesty, graft, and corruption can be lulled into a semi-comatose state where they completely abandon their agency and so become cows to be milked and sheep to be shorn.

It is not a happy situation. Would you like to buy some Illinois bonds? They offer a great current interest coupon rate, but I bet it will get better down the road, so you may want to buy more later.

John henry said...

Buwaya,

I used to have a family cannon and may still somewhere.

My fathers when he was a kid in theteens. It works with carbide powder and water. About a 1"-12 to use naval terminology. 1" bore, 12" long

John Henry

John henry said...

Also have 3 ww2 bunkers a couple hundred yards in front of my house.

John Henry

Ralph L said...

Not everyone has a family cannon.

Some people need one--aimed at family.

My siblings inherited 8 acres on, or very near to which our ancestor led men (NC Cavalry) in battle in the Revolution. Granted, it wasn't much of a battle, a skirmish on Cornwallis's retreat to Yorktown. We've only owned it 50 years, and I found out quite by accident 20 years ago from the cover of the local magazine I saw on a table. The city put up a monument in their new park, and the map came from the ancestor's papers.

Ralph L said...

1" bore, 12" long

A college friend's parents had one about that size that they'd use to start boat races on the Potomac. And on holidays.

Howard said...

Blogger buwaya said...

I can only be biologically detached up to a point, Howard. My wife is qualified for the DAR, being a direct descendant of several who served in the Revolution, one a Virginia Colonel no less


You musta skipped sex education because biology is not back-drivable. My daughter qualifies for DAR and DAC from both sides. The wife and I are distant cousins from John and Priscilla Alden. Maybe your kids are related to me!

Distance is an illusion, as a swimmer, I prefer immersion.

Howard said...

Blogger John henry said...1" bore, 12" long

John Henry


That's exactly why my wife calls mine John Henry

Howard said...

Basque restaurants in the Carson Valley, Nevada serve the best lamb.

buwaya said...

My Basque great-uncles were shepherds in Nevada and Idaho.
When they earned enough money they went home.

Amadeus 48 said...

"The wife and I are distant cousins from John and Priscilla Alden."

Cripes. Me too. You have a lot of ancestors, but Priscilla and John have a LOT of descendants.

Ralph L said...

The wife and I are distant cousins from John and Priscilla Alden

My sister found out my parents were cousins from ~1700 in Ulster. We blame all our problems on that. Mom's side averages 40 years a generation, so there are several removes. They each had an ancestor who arrived in Jamestown before 1620, but they were both young men, so no DNA connection there.

bagoh20 said...

"More than 74% of voters in the poll recognized Ocasio-Cortez, with 22% of people surveyed holding a favorable view. One of the New York Democrat’s colleague, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, received a similar level of fanfare among those polled. She was recognized by 53% of the voters, with 9% of people holding a favorable view of her.

The poll, which was shared to Axios on the condition of anonymity, shows swing voters don’t think much of Ocasio-Cortez’s brand of Democratic socialism. Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%. "


https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/14/ocasio-cortez-nancy-pelosi-2020/

You go, girls!

Dude1394 said...

The author is naive in my opinion. The democrat party does give a durn about federalism( see the move to abolish the electoral college) they are just anti Republican. Republicans actually HAVE cared about federalism, but right now they see the democrat party as a clear and present danger that must be defeated any way possible. It is about time. The Republican Party shouldn’t give an inch to the democrats on anything.

YoungHegelian said...

The question on federalism is when does federalism move from being an exercise in moving political power closer to the people & when does it become an excuse for regional/local elites to abrogate federal law?

I'll give you an example of where "federalism" has become an excuse for local lawlessness -- District of Columbia vs Heller. The District lost a case before the SCOTUS. What the hell did they do about it? They ignored it. They ignored it every bit as much as some Southern states ignored Brown, and every bit as illegally, too. Try & get a gun legally in DC. You can't. Nothing has changed.

Now add in things like "Sanctuary Cities" and Counties, where it's not even clear that the local populace supports these measures, and I think that "federalism" has stepped over into "nullification". Nullification is a dangerous act in post-Civil War America.

I'm Full of Soup said...

The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, tried to let state and local law enforcement check legal status of people they stopped. Libs took her to court and court told her it was a federal function. What a joke - now states and local govt ignore fed laws.

So yeah get ready for the coming civil war- it won't be pretty when Kamala Harris is president and she tries to take property from one race of people and give it to another [ala South Africa].

Darkisland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darkisland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darkisland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darkisland said...

Blogger I'm Full of Soup said...

it won't be pretty when Kamala Harris is president and she tries to take property from one race of people and give it to another [ala South Africa].


The problem with that theory is that it assumes that Kamala Harris is African-American and identifies with the African-American community. And that the African-American community identifies with her.

She is 0% African American. She is half Jamaican half Indian. She spent her formative years in Montreal identifying with the Indian community there. She has no roots in the African American community or historical experience. She has no parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles etc that can tell her about Jim Crow and growing up black in America.

Her husband is not African-American either so she won't get it from him or his side of the family.

Even as an adult she has had precious few roots in the African-American community. Though one African American famously has his root in her, IYKWIMAITYD

She has spent her career mainly prosecuting and locking people up. A high proportion of those people are African-American men. (For good or bad reasons is immaterial here)

She doesn't give two shits, or even one shit, about African-Americans. She is like Obama in this regard. She epitomizes what Lyndon Johnson said:

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

A lot of blacks were fooled by Obama. They thought he was them and they were justifiably proud to vote one of their own into office. I fully understand and agree with them 100%. Were I black, I would have been voting for Obama with both hands. (Given the dreadful choice we had, I supported Obama in 2012 and would have supported him over McCain but for Sarah Palin. But I don't vote)

Harris is more of the same "A little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." Obama did nothing to make African-American lives better. President Harris won't either. Neither care.

She won't be president, I doubt that she will even be a candidate. Obama fooled blacks once, I'll bet they won't be fooled by Harris.

John Henry

Darkisland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darkisland said...

That was wierd. Normally if I leave an HTML tag open, Blogger won't post it, asking me to fix the problem.

Just now I left an italics open in error and blogger went nuts deleting paragraphs and moving others around.

It took me 4 tries to figure out what was happening. Apologies for the 3 deletions.

The other deletion was a test.

Glad I make a habit of copying my comments before posting.

John Henry

Darkisland said...

One other thought,

In South Africa there were enough blacks to elect a government.

The black vote can help someone get elected here. They may even prevent someone from being elected.

But at 13%, they don't have the numbers or money to actually elect someone by themselves.

John Henry

narciso said...

This is supposed to be a bad thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/his-own-fiefdom-mulvaney-builds-an-empire-for-the-right-wing-as-trumps-chief-of-staff/2019/07/14/85c5ebdc-942b-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3MqimvmxsJCIeeSYd_czpLyhE12uDcTZ13nM5g75dmbO-VknVoun3vARM&utm_term=.514e7870f9f0

gadfly said...

Trump followers are not conservative - although they thought that lower taxes and less government sounded good. By 2016, these fence-sitting cons were convinced that the powerful were taking over their lives. So when a lying crook named Trump told them that he could fix that - they jumped off the cliff into the sea. But they are not good swimmers, so they simply continue to paddle in order to stay alive. Unfotunately, once ashore, they jump back in when The Doanld says "jump."

And the morale of he story is that not everyone is a true believer who can live within the strict beliefs required of extremists on both sides of the chasm. Which leads to Ayn Rand: "But 'you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' Today the worn tags of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' are cracking up - and what is showing underneath is: capitalism vs socialism."

Martin said...

"Of course, it is possible that recent liberal praise for constitutional constraints on federal power will prove to be an example of 'fair-weather federalism'..."

It's a 100% certainty; look at what the same people said when Obama was President, and it is hardly as if they show evidence of having learned anything except to hate Donald Trump and anybody who would say anything even neutral about him.

Greg P said...

Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
I am a bit cynical here. Somin has been a broken record over at Volokh esp this last year or so. Whatever the Trump Administration wants to do, he has an article out the next day explaining why they can’t. I used to read his Volokh articles, because they were fairly interesting. But that has not been the case for better than a year. He sounds so venally partisan in his writing any more that I fully expect him now to completely flip when the Democrats retake the White House.

Blogger Sebastian said...
"often ignore it under Trump"

Which conservatives "ignore" federalism in which cases "under Trump"? I call BS.

The underlying problem for conservatives is that progs treat the living Constitution, like anything else in their pursuit of total power, as a mere tool. Rules and procedures and "constraints" and texts--like, 100 years old, dude!--don't mean a thing. But then should conservatives cling to traditional respect for text-based rules, most likely in vain, or take the Somin option of becoming just as instrumental, just as focused on results, as progs, with at least occasional success likely?

Game theory hasn't figured out an equilibrium solution for a situation where one of the players changes the very rules of the game at will.

1: Somin is an open borders absolutist. To the extent that he's fundamentally dishonest on a regular basis. Who are the "anti-Federalism Conservatives"? Why, they're the people who think that Federal law should be enforced on an issue that's naturally and Constitutionally assigned to the Federal Gov't: immigration.

Illya doesn't like those laws, so it's an "assault on Federalism" to try to enforce them

2: The equilibrium solution is you viciously and rigidly impose every single one of their "new rules" on them. Which means it's very easy to find alll the liars who pretend to be against the rule breakers, but really aren't: They're the ones whining whenever the new rules are imposed on those who made them.

3: Good writers make intelligent arguments. Somin is, at best, a good propagandist. He'd have to stop being a TDS dominated loon to actually be a good writer

Bilwick said...

You have to understand "liberalism" and the "liberal" Hive. (And by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government humpers and State fellators.") Their aim remains the same, no matter who's president: increase the power of the State; decrease individual liberty. If a president acts even inconsistently as an impediment to that agenda, the Hive opposes the president; if the president is also a member of the Hive, then Hail to the Chief. If federalism (as it generally does) acts as an impediment to the Hive, federalism must go. If it is somehow perceived as aiding and abetting the Hive, yay federalism! But through it all . . . the Hive uber alles.