Hi Karen - stuck using AOL at 33K bits - not as bad as 26K but almost the Stone Age. I'll be back to broadband in a few days, but felt like commenting on the Reagan/Bush vs. Kerry thing.
I tried to engage E on the issue of federalism and am rather surprised that she did not respond. The issue we were discussing, abortion, is one that is, I believe, a touchstone for principled federalism, as is gay marriage.
If you are a real federalist, then it's easy to say that both issues are NOT federal issues. The SCOTUS should never have opined on abortion. But Roe v. Wade was extremely late in that game. As I've pointed out, circa 1837, when Story was still a justice, they opined on common law marriage in Jewell vs. Jewell, which involved my own family. I would not otherwise know this factoid, except for my interest in geneaology. But since I do know it, I find it both shocking and fascinating -- Story was present at the creation of the Court. If they were opining about common law marriage in 1837, why not opine about abortion circa 1970?
I think it's wrong. I think abortion, birth control, sex acts whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not federal issues, but state issues.
Reagan, who was not a genius, and not otherwise well educated, at least believed in federalism in a sort of bedrock way, probably because he was born before Roosevelt and the socialists decided that the best way to end the Great Depression was a strong federal government with its finger in every transaction nationwide.
Neither Bush was ever a federalist and maybe never even heard of federalism. Cheney, on the other hand, has at least heard of it, maybe from his wife.
But you can't expect presidents to be federalists. Congress has to do it.
Which is why Kerry's voting record is so telling. |
