Perhaps the oldest American argument divides those who believe in the power of a strong federal government and those who believe in decentralization, with power residing, not in Washington, but in the states. Alexander Hamilton, patron saint of the Republican Party, called for a central government, Thomas Jefferson, patron of the Democrats, wanted power dispersed. Neither man got exactly what he wanted in the founding of the Republic; as the nation lurched forward through the decades, the question was deferred.
Eighty years later, the issue of states’ rights was the fuse that lit the powder keg of the Civil War. In the recent debates over the proper method for displaying the Confederate flag, apologists for the old south argued that the Civil War was not about slavery at all, but was an ideological and philosophical battle over states’ rights. They’re right – up to a point. The Civil War was fought over the question of whether states had the right to secede from the union. Southern states wanted to secede from the union because the federal government wanted to limit slavery. States’ rights may have been the window dressing, but the war was about slavery.
Today, the original poles of the political debate have been reversed. The heirs of Jefferson believe in an activist federal government – think of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. The heirs of Hamilton – think Reagan, Bush, Bush – want to get government off our backs.
Of course, none of this is carved in stone. Students of government and jurisprudence were all bowled over last year when the champions of states’ rights – Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, Kennedy and Thomas – chose to interfere in Florida’s election process, a clear intrusion by the federal government into a state’s jurisdiction.
Once the Bush administration had been installed by this extraordinary event, Mr. Bush named John Ashcroft – an ardent states’ rightist and self-proclaimed admirer of the old Confederacy – to be attorney general.
So what are we to think when Attorney General Ashcroft, less than a year into his tenure, is thrusting the Justice Department deep into a state’s criminal case?
Last year in Rhode Island, a young couple was car-jacked and murdered by five men. It was a brutal and senseless crime and there is little dispute about the facts of the matter. Three of the five defendants have pleaded guilty, the case against two other remains unresolved.
There is no death penalty in Rhode Island; if convicted the worst the two men face is life in prison with no chance of parole. The families of the victims, outraged by the wantonness of the crime, have called for the Justice Department to intervene, try the defendants in federal court and sentence them to death.
Almost all criminal cases are handled by state courts. Federal courts do sometimes intervene, but federal intervention is usually triggered by some inter-state or federal issue within the case. In this instance, the only reason to move these cases to federal court would seem to be that the federal court has a death penalty, the state court does not and the victims’ families want the defendants to die.
Does John Ashcroft respect states’ rights and defer to Rhode Island or does he maneuver for every opportunity to invoke the death penalty, which he and his boss so staunchly support? Do states’ rights apply to all states, or just those that agree with the administration?
Does the same hold true for individual rights? What about your rights?
The State of Rights
Perhaps the oldest American argument divides those who believe in the power of a strong federal government and those who believe in decentralization, with power residing, not in Washington, but in the states. Alexander Hamilton, patron saint of the Republican Party, called for a central government, Thomas Jefferson, patron of the Democrats, wanted power dispersed. Neither man got exactly what he wanted in the founding of the Republic; as the nation lurched forward through the decades, the question was deferred.
Eighty years later, the issue of states’ rights was the fuse that lit the powder keg of the Civil War. In the recent debates over the proper method for displaying the Confederate flag, apologists for the old south argued that the Civil War was not about slavery at all, but was an ideological and philosophical battle over states’ rights. They’re right – up to a point. The Civil War was fought over the question of whether states had the right to secede from the union. Southern states wanted to secede from the union because the federal government wanted to limit slavery. States’ rights may have been the window dressing, but the war was about slavery.
Today, the original poles of the political debate have been reversed. The heirs of Jefferson believe in an activist federal government – think of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. The heirs of Hamilton – think Reagan, Bush, Bush – want to get government off our backs.
Of course, none of this is carved in stone. Students of government and jurisprudence were all bowled over last year when the champions of states’ rights – Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, Kennedy and Thomas – chose to interfere in Florida’s election process, a clear intrusion by the federal government into a state’s jurisdiction.
Once the Bush administration had been installed by this extraordinary event, Mr. Bush named John Ashcroft – an ardent states’ rightist and self-proclaimed admirer of the old Confederacy – to be attorney general.
So what are we to think when Attorney General Ashcroft, less than a year into his tenure, is thrusting the Justice Department deep into a state’s criminal case?
Last year in Rhode Island, a young couple was car-jacked and murdered by five men. It was a brutal and senseless crime and there is little dispute about the facts of the matter. Three of the five defendants have pleaded guilty, the case against two other remains unresolved.
There is no death penalty in Rhode Island; if convicted the worst the two men face is life in prison with no chance of parole. The families of the victims, outraged by the wantonness of the crime, have called for the Justice Department to intervene, try the defendants in federal court and sentence them to death.
Almost all criminal cases are handled by state courts. Federal courts do sometimes intervene, but federal intervention is usually triggered by some inter-state or federal issue within the case. In this instance, the only reason to move these cases to federal court would seem to be that the federal court has a death penalty, the state court does not and the victims’ families want the defendants to die.
Does John Ashcroft respect states’ rights and defer to Rhode Island or does he maneuver for every opportunity to invoke the death penalty, which he and his boss so staunchly support? Do states’ rights apply to all states, or just those that agree with the administration?
Does the same hold true for individual rights? What about your rights?