In a response to criticisms regarding his votes on certain tort reform bill during his tenure in the Senate, Fred Thompson defended his stance at RedState with an insightful and principled analysis of what it means to support federalism. It’s clear that Fred Thompson has much more to offer this presidential race than just an actor’s experience in front of cameras. This is a principled thinker who is willing to stand up against overwhelming opposition to advance what he believes that proper role of the government should be; something the Republican party is in desperate need of.

. . .This discussion is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes. During my eight years in the Senate, I tried to adhere to this principle. For me it was a lodestar. Not only was it what our founding fathers created ? a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: ?Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government??

As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don?t).

Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things ? especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. I am afraid that such a test is often based more upon who is favored between two self-serving litigants than upon legal and constitutional principles. Isn?t that what we make all the Supreme Court nominees promise not to do?

Read it all.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS