Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Korth
More proof that di Lorenzo is a loony. If you are going to write an article about the drug war, why not make the best case you can on that issue and not drag in all the antebellum baggage that will only convince those who are already convinced and will turn off most other readers? Di Lorenzo simply throws everything he has in his files on the page, mangling a complicated paper by Madison in the process. Unfortunately it doesn't add up to proving what he thinks it does, let alone the idea of state secession at will that he defended in his book.

Every President and Congress since Washington has made use of the "implied powers" of the federal government under the Constitution. That very much includes "strict constructionists" like Jefferson and Madison. That is part of the logic of the Constitution, and is the reason why the Constitution endured and the Articles of Confederation failed.

There may be constitutional questions about the drug war, but with the growth of interstate commerce after the Civil War, it was inevitable that the federal government would use its constitutional powers to regulate interstate trade. Whether this includes aspects of the drug war is another question, but for good or ill it does provide a constitutional mandate for much of what the government does today.

The idea that the Civil War was fought between Federalists and Anti-Federalists or centralizers and state's rightists or statists and libertarians is superficially appealing. It would come as a surprise to those Wisconsans who asserted state authority against the fugitive slave acts, though, and to those Southerners who used federal coercion to get their way on this issue. It would also trouble those who witnessed the conflicts between the state governments and the Confederate government or the willingness of both to use repressive measures to preserve their power.

Similarly, the speed with which Southerners got on the progressive bandwagon in the twentieth century to use federal taxes for their own benefit makes one skeptical of the whole idea of a fixed libertarian vs. statist, South vs. North polarity in American political history. As do the claims of "state's rightists" for absolute state sovereignty and their willingness to bring all the power of the state down on those who are in their power. State's rights is another form of statism and it can be ferocious to those in its grasp.

The idea of a federal union in which we all have certain basic rights and freedom of movement from state to state was more a Lincolnian than an anti-Lincolnian idea. The alternative would have meant more power for state government, no guarantees of basic rights, and less mobility across state lines.

58 posted on 04/25/2002 12:33:26 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: x
Shush. -- Apparently no one here wants you to address reality, they want to fight the civil war, - over & over & over & ---
-- a pox on all their houses.
59 posted on 04/25/2002 12:49:48 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: x
Shush. -- Apparently no one here wants you to address reality, they want to fight the civil war, - over & over & over & ---
-- a pox on all their houses.

They quibble of who did what a hundred forty years ago, while the constitution crumbles.

60 posted on 04/25/2002 12:54:00 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: x
BUMP
111 posted on 04/25/2002 2:31:41 PM PDT by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson