Leading GOP Candidates Don't Want to Return Power to the States

More

The two Republican frontrunners made it clear at Saturday's Presidential Forum that they aren't much interested in states' rights

epps_republicans_post.jpg

AP Images

Suppose you are a sincere conservative advocate of "states' rights."  What conclusion would you draw from Saturday night's Presidential Forum on Fox News Channel's Huckabee show? 

As I once pointed out elsewhere, American attitudes toward the division of power between state and federal government track a famous line from Thomas  Jefferson's First Inaugural Address: "We are all republicans," he said, holding out an olive branch to the other party, "we are all federalists."

But as he himself demonstrated in office, when it comes to limits on federal power, we are all hypocrites.  The basic view of "states' rights" is that they extend to any policy that the speaker thinks will go his or her way at the state level.  Policies that can become law at the federal level become, ipso facto, "national problems." Certainly this mode of thinking seems to have affected some of the Republican presidential candidates.

The only two who seem to have given serious thought to the division of authority between the states and the federal government are Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Gov. Rick Perry, also of Texas.  As for the rest, some show interest in federalism as a slogan, and a surprising number show no interest in it at all.

The Huckabee segment featured individual questioning of six of the declared candidates--former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Paul, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.   

The questioners were (from right to left on your television screen) Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt.  

As someone who has spent his political career in Washington, Gingrich clearly wants to do big things once he gets his hands on the levers of federal power.  What, he was asked, about his proposal to empower local citizen boards to decide whether long-time undocumented residents of a community should be deported or allowed to remain?  Why shouldn't the states be making that decision?

Gingrich's answer ought to chill "Tenthers" in the unseen audience. "The Tenth Amendment actually talks about the states and the citizens," Gingrich said (check the text, he's got the wording about right). Thus, the implication is, the federal government can reach over the head of the states and empower boards in cities and towns--presumably made up of appointees by President Gingrich, not Governor Whoever--to carry out important federal programs. I'm about as nationalist as they come, but even I never considered the Tenth Amendment as a source of federal power before.

Rick Santorum, also a Washington creature, wants the federal government to exercise pastoral authority over our safety and our sex and family lives.  Asked by Bondi whether any part of the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, he said, "no."  When asked whether states or the federal government should be defending marriage and the family, he said, "the president can lead a revitalization of marriage."  Asked whether regulation of abortion might be best left to the states, he said, "I support a constitutional amendment"--which would, of course, federalize the issue; Santorum deceptively tried to claim that solution was state-oriented since the states would have to ratify the amendment.  A marriage amendment is needed too. "We can't have 50 definitions of marriage.  Marriage is too important" to be left to the states.

Rick Perry really does believe the states should be free to have policies he dislikes.  He had to back off that position early in the race, when he said states that wanted gay marriage should be allowed to have it. Now he's firmly on board for the marriage amendment. He's against a national "right to work" law: we need "to get the federal government out of making one size fit all even if it's for things that we thing we would like." What if a state continually fails to provide and education for its children, should the federal government step in: "No. . . . If you believe in the Tenth Amendment and you believe that the people in that state are going to impact those legislators they will do that."

Cuccinelli asked him about "strict constructionist" judges--what does the term mean?  Perry, who has a tendency to see things in terms of good people and bad people, explained that it means a judge "who is not a legislator or a rogue and we've got about four of each of those" on the Supreme Court. This Court is out of control, he said. "The idea that they're telling us in Texas we can't have the Ten Commandments on our Capitol grounds--that's pretty offensive to me." (Perry was a party to that case; he seems to think he lost, but actually he won. When he gets back to Austin he should take a look: the monument's there.)

Jump to comments
Presented by

Garrett Epps is a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He teaches constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore, and is the author of American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

What Is the Greatest Story Ever Told?

A panel of storytellers share their favorite tales, from the Bible to Charlotte's Web.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.

Video

How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe

Video

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.

Video

I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Writers

Up
Down

More in Politics

From This Author

Just In