(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

The Federalism Ruse
12/02/2003

In the heat of argument, it's easy to lose sight of important pieces of an argument. Lane Core, to my knowledge, is the first to remind us all that a Constitutional amendment isn't exactly a breech of federalist ideals:

I do not say Federalism Shmederalism because I think federalism should be abandoned to prevent the judiciary from imposing its arbitrary will on the people, by inventing "gay" "marriage", but because I do not think that a Federal Marriage Amendment is an abandonment of federalism: I think it is an exercise in federalism.

For the federal government does not impose a federal constitutional amendment onto the states; the states impose it onto the federal government and, insofar as is specified, upon all the states.

As Lane points out, 75% of the states have to approve an amendment before it can go into effect. In keeping with what I've been writing lately, I imagine this will be yet another argument that the pro–gay marriage forces will ignore. Nonetheless, it does help to shift the balance of the equivalence between federalization via amendment and federalization via judiciary. Not only is the former the prescribed method, not only does it place the responsibility with elected, accountable representatives, but it also leaves the determination ultimately to the states.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 11:09 PM EST

1 Comment

Thanks very much.

ELC @ 12/03/2003 07:34 PM EST