The Left Suddenly Discovers the Joys of Decentralized Governance
Under Barack Obama, leftists relentlessly pursued national laws to address every possible issue, from health care to gun control. But all of a sudden, pieces in left-leaning publications indicate that some leftists, faced with a federal government controlled by Republicans, are starting to muse about the merits of states’ rights.
And I think it’s wonderful. Amusing . . . but wonderful.
We’ve seen the spectacle of Jelani Cobb at the New Yorker citing the example of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions from 1798-1799, for crying out loud, in defense of state nullification of federal laws. In a similar spirit, Jeffrey Rosen writes in the New York Times:
Having lost all three branches of the federal government again, progressives are now concluding that they have no alternative but to redouble their efforts at the local level. . . . [S]ome important progressive victories have already occurred in blue and red state referendums. On Nov. 8, voters in three states (California, Nevada and Washington) voted for stricter gun control. Four states (Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington) voted to increase the minimum wage. Four Trump states (Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota) passed ballot measures allowing or expanding the use of medical marijuana, while California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada voted to legalize the use of recreational marijuana.
. . . .
Whether the Republican White House, Congress and Supreme Court allow progressive federalists to get away with that will depend on whether Republicans prove as devoted to states’ rights now that they control the federal government as they were when they were the ones in the wilderness.
Many Republicans will indeed shed their devotion to states’ rights, of course — because (like many leftists) they care more about their preferred policy outcomes than about the constitutional structure of our government.
But some of us are willing to help the left make structural changes in favor of federalism — if the changes are designed to outlive the Trump administration, and rein in the left as well as right.
Some of the proposals by leftists are inappropriate, such as urging locals to establish more sanctuary cities and resist federal efforts to enforce anti-immigration laws. Immigration is one of the few issues that is national in character, and efforts to resist our federal laws are not rooted in federalism.
But, by contrast, if the left wants to enable states and local communities to make decisions that the Constitution leaves to the states, I’m all for it. If they suddenly want to help us make long-lasting structural changes to our government that favor states’ rights, I’m in. If they want to help set precedents to rein in the federal government at all times, and not just when Republicans are in charge, I agree.
One of the less shrill and more reasonable arguments has been made by conservative Democrat Joel Kotkin at the Daily Beast, who appears to have a principled view of the possible benefits of local power for both the right and the left:
What Americans across the political spectrum need to recognize is that centralizing power does not promote national unity, but ever harsher division. Enforced central control, from left or right, polarizes politics in dangerous ways. The rather hysterical reaction to Trump’s election on the left is a case in point, with some in alt-blue California calling for secession from the union. Had Clinton and the Democrats won, we would have heard other secessionist sentiment, notably in Texas.
This is no way to maintain a “United” States. Under Obama, conservative states resisted ever expanding federal executive power; now it’s the progressives’ turn to worry about an overweening central state.
. . . .
In his drive to make America “great” again, the new president needs to revitalize our flagging democracy not by doubling down on federal power but by empowering local communities to determine what’s best for them. Anything else gives us a choice between ideological despotisms that can only enrage and alienate half of our population by forcing down their throats policies they can’t abide, and, in most cases, should not be forced to accept.
I, for one, welcome our new friends in resisting our federal overlords. The sentiment isn’t going to last long; the second the leftists think they can regain federal power, they’ll chuck federalism overboard. Let’s strike while the iron is hot.
Let’s make the changes structural, so they can’t change them back when they feel like it. Let’s start with an Article V convention to carry out some of the proposals made by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, like “Allow[ing] a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation” or “Prohibit[ing] administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.”
Come on, progressives! Let’s do this! Call it opposing Donald Trump if you like. That’s fine with me.
Hurrah for decentralization!
P.S. If these ideas appeal to you, consider joining my group the Constitutional Vanguard, which supports liberty, the free market, and the Constitution. We have a private Facebook group and a private forum to promote those issues. Join us!
[Cross-posted at RedState.com.]
Time to push through some State’s Rights Amendments.
How about: A vote by 3/4ths of the state legislatures within a 6 month window removes the President, Vice-President, other executive officer subject to Senate confirmation, or Article III judge.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/5/2016 @ 11:52 amPaying any attention to the caterwauling of sour grapes leftist loosers is as useless and counterproductive as listening to Trump bashers claim Hillary was sure to crush him in the General election, just sayin
ropelight (93e7ce) — 12/5/2016 @ 11:59 amThe Dems do realize that the GOP has a commanding lead in the State Houses and Governor, so decentralizing will only speed up the American agenda. Give ’em a participation trophy and tell ’em to sit down and shut up.
Stosh (ab2f0c) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:16 pmAnd here’s a kind of followup to taht article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/california-to-consider-laws-to-protect-immigrants-from-trump-policies.html
The reference to legal help has to with petitions for asylum and for hardship deferments.
By the way, Hillary Clinton attempted to finesse this issue was by talking about legal help.
However, the legal grounds for asylum are not identical to what someone might fear. Threats by criminals are not really grounds for asylum. Threats by governments are.
Although it can be argued the government is tolerating the criminals, and this routinely works for homosexuals under current practice. Not so much for people running from gangs. (Asylum law is actually profoundly influenced by considerations of the number of people who would benefit – and there aren’t that many homosexual claims – although there’s nothing in the law that says anything like count the number of people affected and be wary of granting asylum for something that many people could qualify for.)
Also: Someone may have a main motive that does not help them, but another reason that does, and a lawyer would tell them to stress the grounds that benefit them even if it not their personal motivation. An inexperienced person will tell what hits the heart, not what has legal value. So that’s the reason for the lawyers.
Someone who abides by the lawyer’s code of ethics won’t tell them to actually make up a story, but that has happened a lot, too. In fact, I read once I think in a story in the New Yorker – about someone from Ghana I think – that it’s been the experience sometimes that true stories are not believed but false ones (provided it matches something that was reported in Wikipedia and probably actually happened, just not to the person in court) are. And if it is not in Wikipedia it may be hard to get the persecution story accepted. That’s the kind of checking they do.
Sammy Finkelman (eb0eea) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:37 pmThe reference to criminal court has to do with the fact that conviction for certain crimes carries with it the possible penalty of deportation, so while, for U.S. citizens, it might make sense to plea bargain something to a particular charge, it would not make sense for an alien, if he or she wanted to stay in the United States.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is part of the responsibility of a defense lawyer to know what the immigration consequences of a guilty plea are and if the defense counsel was not aware of it, the defendant did not get effective assistance of counsel, so we can see Caifornia trying to get convictions overturned, or issuing pardons.
The New York Times had an op-ed piece the other day (on Thanksgiving actually – I didn’t remember taht detail) by someone who pled guilty (who implies he was not actually guilty of the charge.)
He was a legal immigrant, but legal immigrants can be deported for crimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/opinion/mr-trump-i-am-an-immigrant-with-a-criminal-record.html
You don’t get high numbers of “criminals” without cases like that, and even so you don’t get 2 or 3 million. It should be noted that the Bush Administration found a way a way not to proceed.
Sammy Finkelman (eb0eea) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:47 pmBut it’s all a lie. They argue for whatever process leads to their desired outcome and against any that doesn’t, sometimes switching in mid-sentence.
Inviting them in would be a terrible mistake, they would totally roll Party of Stupid they way they always do.
How did affirmative action lead to quotas?
How did Title IX lead to quotas in collegiate sports?
How did alcoholism and drug abuse become disabilities qualifying one for SS, Medicare, and vocational retraining?
How did E-Verify get set up to enable illegal immigrants to work legally?
I think it would be better for an Article V convention to wait another 8 – 16 years for more state governments to be fully R, than it would to try to have it now with the help of progressives, they simply do no operate in good faith and “live and let live” is no principle of theirs.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:50 pm3. Stosh (ab2f0c) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:16 pm
But not in California and New York, and many immigrant heavy areas.
The idea is they would retain control in certain places – in fact enhance it, because the more immigrants of any kind an area gets, the weaker the Republican party gets, and we see this happening even in Arizona.
We could see a lot of sectionalism.
Sammy Finkelman (eb0eea) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:53 pmGabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:50 pm
Lawyers.
Sammy Finkelman (eb0eea) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:54 pm.
Absolutely. So what? Use the moment, when they cynically pretend to be for states’ rights, to get some real, lasting states’ rights protections in place.
My argument is not that the left suddenly found principles. It’s that their temporary leaning against federal (and executive) power is a good thing if we can cement it with a structural change.
Patterico (115b1f) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:56 pmWhat is it? A safe harbor? I could see you arguing it doesn’t change anything, but how does it help?
Sammy Finkelman (eb0eea) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:56 pm@Sammy Finkelman:What is it? A safe harbor?
Regardless of E-Verify’s outcome, the employer has a legal right to continue to employ the person.
Whether they came up authorized or not, whether they cooperated or not.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:57 pmjoyful all ye leftists rise please to help decentralize
happyfeet (a037ad) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:58 pm@Patterico:Use the moment, when they cynically pretend to be for states’ rights, to get some real, lasting states’ rights protections in place.
Won’t happen. They will put something in that guts it. Just like in all the examples I listed, and in many more I had no time to list.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 12:59 pm@Sammy Finkelman: I’ve linked to the manual for employers any number of times. There are only four outcomes: Authorized, Tentative Non-Confirmation, Final Non-Confirmation, and No Show. In the three negative cases, the employer has the legal right to continue employment.
Examine, sir, the following E-Verify outcomes:
1) “The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving an Employment Authorized result.”
E-Verify has verified that the employee is eligible to work in the United States and the employee continues to work for the employer.
2) “The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a Final Nonconfirmation result.”
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the Tentative Nonconfirmation, but was unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
3) “The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a No Show result.”
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the Tentative Nonconfirmation, but did not take action to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
4) “The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation.”
E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee chose not to contest the Tentative Nonconfirmation. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:05 pmOn a related note, very few US lefties drive Russian cars.
JP (f1742c) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:06 pmThe left only believes in the Constitution when they can use it to push their agenda.
Otherwise, it’s just an obstacle to their imagined utopia of a unified leftist state.
They are the scorpion.
NJRob (ba17c0) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:42 pmSammy,
He should be deported.
NJRob (ba17c0) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:46 pmSomething lasting, like DOMA?
NJRob (ba17c0) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:48 pm@NJRob:Something lasting, like DOMA?
This is a pretty good example.
At any rate, even amending the Constitution is not enough. Courts have struck down amendments to state constitutions on the ground that the amendment was inconsistent with the rest of the state constitution. You would think that would be a contradiction in terms, isn’t that the point of the amendment that it supersedes the original, but at least some judges would say you were wrong.
The kind of structural changes that would prevent judicial do-overs would never be accepted by progressives.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 1:55 pmI really want to see what Governor Brown does when the state gets zero dollars from the federal budget.
No education, road, medical or general revenue sharing. Nada. He’ll be lucky not to be arrested for conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegally importing persons in violation of immigration law.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/5/2016 @ 3:20 pmSammy, the immigration thing is a loser because the Constitution clearly give this power to Congress and just as clearly ended state involvement in 1808.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/5/2016 @ 3:22 pmCongress could pass a law that says:
Any person, in a position of authority, who is found to knowingly shelter a person in violation of federal immigration law, is guilty of a felony, punishable by 5 years in federal prison.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/5/2016 @ 3:26 pm@Kevin M:Congress could pass a law that says:
Any person, in a position of authority, who is found to knowingly shelter a person in violation of federal immigration law, is guilty of a felony, punishable by 5 years in federal prison.
It will also say that “person”, “position of authority”, “knowingly” and “shelter” will be defined by the regulatory agencies by their rule-making powers, and no one will be liable under their interpretation when they get done with it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/5/2016 @ 3:41 pmBTW Tucker Carlson interviewed Jeffrey Rosen on this today. Good piece, might be on line.
Patricia (5fc097) — 12/5/2016 @ 8:01 pm