Submitted by Sam Davis, Sep 17, 2007 09:34

It will be interesting to see if Fred Thompson's federalism is consistent or selective. A strict reading of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and most particularly Article 10, would sanction California's medical marijuana law as well as Oregon's right to die law. The Supreme Court, since 1937, has reinterpreted the Constitution to justify the widest possible accumulation of power in Washington, overturning a century and a half of jurisprudence that mostly boiled down to "the Constitution says what it means and means what it says."

Hardly any member of Congress - Ron Paul is the only exception I can think of - takes a fully federalist position on the Constitution. That's not surprising, since most of the things most members of Congress have voted for over the last 70 years are unconstitutional, decisions by deluded Supreme Court justices to the contrary notwithstanding. It will be a surprise if Thompson takes a fully federalist position in his campaign, since, among other things, that completely precludes a socially activist federal government, no matter whether the activism is on behalf of leftist or rightist agendas. It will be most interesting to see his position on the war on drugs, probably the most egregious violation of federalism, since this is a "third rail" for many Republicans who have not yet figured out that it's a state issue and that, by the way, drug prohibition has not worked any better than alcohol prohibition.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.