Class: Constitutional Law
Professor: Risa Gobuloff
Topic: Federalism
California is set to vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment in a few weeks. The subject matter is close to many who live there: gay marriage. It’s unfortunate in my view, because marriage should be left to the people and the government should stay the hell out of it.
But I doubt that will be the case anytime soon, especially seeing how those on the left are just as adamant about forcing the government to “recognize” their rights (my mistake for thinking true rights need no allowance) as those on the right are petitioning against them. All I can say is good luck in November, whichever side of an absurd debate you find yourself on.
The topic was conveniently brought up (by me) in my constitutional law class with Professor Goluboff last week. The debate centered on “whether we want federalism as it is proposed in the constitution” (yes you read that right). The matter was laid out after a survey of Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). A young lady in the class raised her hand and detailed how she thought that federalism was appropriate in certain cases. As she explained, she liked it when it protected California’s right to allow gay marriage but thought it was an ill advised policy when applied to the racial strife in the former confederacy during the desegregation period.
What principles.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) also helped those with a leftist mentality understand exactly why federalism should be protected and the Commerce Clause reinterpreted. The Bush administration helped my cause in this way. His administration showed those on the left that betting all your chips that the federal government will be on your ideological side is risky, and being allowed to seek refuge in the state of your choice should be an American principle we never let slip away.
If you claim federalism only when it protects your side, you don’t believe in federalism at all.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment