--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In addition, I don't see it as an argument of > inherent principal in > many/most cases; but as a pragmatic argument. The > same people who argue > things should be handled at the state level for X > tend to support uniform > federal standards on Y. This can best be seen by > liberals starting to > endorse states rights for things like medical > marijuana and pollution > regulations. The conservatives, who usually have > argued for less federal > government control, have taken the other side. > Dan M.
I would actually point out that _none_ of this necessarily has to be hypocrisy. The concept of "state's rights" to me is not that _all things_ are best determined at the state level, but that some things are. Since the overwhelming trend since the Second World War has been the willy-nilly federalization of every conceivable issue, state's rights proponents have often been seen as favoring states over the federal government in all things and, when they fail to do so, as people who are acting hypocritically. That's not necessarily fair, however. The best book I've read on this topic (in part) is _America's Constitutional Soul_, a collection of essays by Harvey Mansfield. Unfortunately it's written with Mansfield's usual elegant but opaque style, so I found that I had to read every paragraph at least three times before I began to understand it... ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
