Justin, you’ve taken the anti-federalist approach, and the Lincoln era Republican approach of granting to the federal government the power and authority to make things happen.

It’s funny how shifts in the major issues facing our country seem to require that we lean more heavily towards one of these ideologies or the other, but I don’t think the case can be made that one is always preferable to the other. For example, in the years prior to the emancipation of the slaves (not just those in the rebellious South), a strong federal government imposing its morality on the states was a good thing. The whole history of Civil Rights really runs with that same theme.

On the other hand, the federal government’s aggrandizement of power through an overly liberal use of the commerce clause and a rather restrictive view of what constitutes the “Police Power” and traditional authority reserved to states has led to fairly absurd circumstances, such as the legalization of medical marijuana in some states while the drug remains fully outlawed by the federal government (which really has no good Constitutional authority to do so). So-called dispensaries, pseudo-pharmacies where patients can purchase their pot, are left with an obligation to pay taxes to the federal government, but because their income stream is illegal from a federal standpoint, they have no choice but to lie on their tax returns or face confiscation of all of their assets by the DEA.

Considering that marriage has also long been a matter traditionally reserved to the states, it is somewhat ironic that we see the modern Republican party, typically more federalist in their leanings (i.e., pro states rights), are the ardent supporters of DOMA, an act which is utterly anathema to the parties political viewpoint, albeit perfectly in line with it’s moral ideology.

Ultimately, I agree to an extent with the Federalists, that limiting the federal government so as to allow the states to take actions on their own is a good thing. The states are excellent places to test out new legislation and ideas, and what works would hopefully spread to the other states. On the other hand, history and experience has taught us that states have an awful tendency to abuse their power and authority at the expense of individuals. I believe this problem was foreseen by George Mason, if not some of our other “founding fathers”, and is why we have a Bill of Rights.

The dilemma, then, is simply this: how do we know when to enable the federal government to act in such a way as to undermine the states? The truth is, we don’t. We also don’t have anything near the scale of Slavery to make the answer seem so clear (in retrospect, anyway. Obviously, people couldn’t see the issue quite as we can in hindsight). Is preventing the scourge of Marijuana a vital, national interest such that the states should be subordinated to the federal government on the issue? Probably not. But really, does it matter? Is anyone going to take up arms in the name of grass? I sincerely hope not. So, how this balances out may be an annoyance to some, it does not appear as though a fundamental right is at stake.

DOMA and the same-sex marriages it effectively nullifies as between states may be a different story. Should the federal government be involved here? From a purely legal standpoint, not in the way it has. The states have the right to define marriage for themselves, and that should be beyond question. The only time the federal government should become involved is when the states are violating Constitutional rights, seeing as we now require that states not violate our rights, under the Constitution. Isn’t this where the federal government has shone in the past, demanding that states not violate the constitutional rights of members of society during the civil rights movement? I’m not saying that the actual grievances are of the same gravity, in fact, I don’t know whether or not there is a right under our federal Constitution for same-sex couples to marry. I think there should be, but I’m not trying to argue my beliefs in that regard. I don’t think the federal government could or should force states to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, that’s within the purview of the state. DOMA merely stands as a federal blessing to the states to violate the full faith and credit clause (is that the right one, it’s been a few years since ConLaw), which is the exact opposite of what the federal government should be doing.

In the end, allowing the federalists a complete victory effectively turns the federal government into the United Nations- an organization which would have a two word entry in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Planet: Mostly Harmless. The federal government as a protector of human rights has been, in history and experience, a vital part of the American Machine. On the other hand, power begets power. The polarization created by our two party system is nothing new. It is not decades old, it is centuries old. It is why we are a federally organized political unit, the United States of America, and not a centralized government with subsidiaries at the local levels. It is why, as Otto, you pointed out, we never swing too wildly from one side of the debate to the other.

Do we need easy filibustering to achieve this? No. The system worked for years without it. Quite frankly, I see the 1974 filibustering agreement as politicians doing what they do best: Buying more campaign time and making themselves look better to their constituents. Make them work for their ideals. Make them do SOMETHING for %@$#’s sake.

For more on politicians, visit my blog at http://stinkingpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/06/june-2011-one-year-5-months-until.html

Happy Justin? I left a comment.