It would have been easy for Thompson to speak the typical BS about how “we need to make sure every child blah, blah, blah.”

Oh, you mean like Bush did?

Finally, we have a Presidential candidate who understands that education is not a federal issue.

Well…Ron Paul was saying this while Fred Thompson was standing on the sidelines.

However, I do commend Mr. Thompson for getting it right on this one. And you are right–most of the countries issues need to be decided localy.

Glen, you sure do love you some “founding fathers.” Look, they were smart, maybe brilliant, and committed to the idea of free citizens. The country they helped start is long gone. Thank God. What we have is flawed, but fixable, but we had better look to new ideas from smart and maybe brilliant and committed people who are alive today. They exist, you know, but I doubt Thompson is one of them.

Education should be a federal issue. If Alabama decided that only three years of education was enough, (perhaps for budget reasons) then the rest of us will have to pay to house and feed these people, if they don’t kill us first. What difference does it make to you if its local, state, or federal govt mandating things for you? Its still GOVERNMENT.

Federalize the education system. Eliminate property taxes, and pay for education with income taxes or create a consumption tax to compliment the income tax.

Ginger, exactly just like Bush did.

Mack, first of all we don’t get to violate the constitution just because we think it is a good idea to do so. Lots of people may not like the Second Amendment, but the fact is, its in there and so is the Tenth Amendment.

Mack, I like how you used an extreme example to make a point. I also like how you picked on Alabama. I guess in your world it is okay to say something like that about Alabama, home of rednecks in your view, than say Mexico. But moving along. Mack it makes a big difference whether the laws being dictated to you and me are decided by a large central government miles away or by a smaller government just a few miles away in Nashville. Ask the very liberal state of Vermont about this. Do you really think the southern states should impose their view of morality on Vermont? Do you really want a federal amendment restricting abortion or gay marriage?

Decentralized government is essential to securing citizen’s rights. Let me put it to you in simpler terms. When power in centralized in Washington, it is far from the people. When more power is granted to the states, power is closer to the people.

Sean, you sure do like taxes, don’t you. Good grief, create a consumption tax to COMPLIMENT the income tax? Amazing.

Glen,

I’d be perfectly happy with raising the income tax rates, but I figured a consumption tax in place would be a concession.

Well, first of all, no need to make things “simpler”, thank you. I’ll try to keep up.

I have lived in Alabama, and it just came to mind. Maybe Mississippi would have been a better example, given that they are ranked like 51st in education. Well above Alabama’s 46th spot. What on Earth does Mexico have to do with anything? I was born in california, never lived in mexico.

Decentralized government is essential to securing citizen’s rights? Which citizens? It is precisely because some states could not be trusted to treat all people equally that we had a civil rights crisis in this country not that long ago. Sean is right, and I’ll add that we should match our education spending with our defense spending.

[…] Glen Dean writes an ode to federalism and Fred Thompson this morning discussing whether we have gone too far in the process of centralizing government power and what we can realistically expect in terms of seeing power devolved in this country: Over time the citizens of this country have become so accustomed to the Federal government being involved in just about everything, that every solution to every problem is expected to come from the Federal level. It’s as if we have written the 10th amendment out of the constitution. […]

Mack and Sean, as long as this huge federal government does what you want, you will see it as good. I had hoped that some of you would see the need for federalism and the rights of the minority to govern themselves during the Bush Presidency. Instead, you guys have just dug in. If Bush can’t convince liberals of the need for power to not be centralized in Washington, you guys are hopeless. I give up.

Glen,

If segregation didn’t change your opinion on the need to have a more national identity, I don’t know what will.

Ah yes segregation. It always takes something big to justify a big power grab.

Federalism does not mean that education should be centralised at the Federal level. The segregation argument is a completely different matter. How you can take segregation and centralized bureaucratic control of schools is beyond any understanding of Federalism.

I think some review is in order. I suggest Number9 and Number10 to start.

Federalism is NOT creating a massive centralized bureaucracy to control the lives of individual citizens. Education must be a local issue.

The greatest problem of the last fifty years is the complete misunderstanding of what Federalism is. It is not a bigger federal government.

I am glad at least two candidates are discussing Federalism in this Presidential campaign. Thompson has this issue right.

Sean,

If you are so concerned about the federal budget the government allows for voluntary contributions over and above your current rate.

Put your money where your mouth is!

Tman,

Good argument.

Arguments like abortion […] should all be made at the state level.

I probably shouldn’t open this can of worms, but… My understanding of your viewpoint on abortion is that it is murder and should therefore be outlawed. That being the case, you don’t think murder should be illegal on a federal level? Seriously?

If you don’t think abortion is murder but still wish to see it outlawed, then how are you any different than just a run-of-the-mill social conservative who wants to enforce his own morality on the populace?

then how are you any different than just a run-of-the-mill social conservative who wants to enforce his own morality on the populace?

And do you want to enforce your morality on the populace? On gay marriage, you do want that do be approved at the Federal level, correct?

Logically, I don’t understand what you wrote. What is your understanding of Federalism?

And do you want to enforce your morality on the populace?

no, I don’t.

On gay marriage, you do want that do be approved at the Federal level, correct?

Sure, but I can understand the argument as to why some would want to leave it to the states which is why I left that, education, and religion out of my comment.

Abortion fundamentally different in that Glen has previously voiced the view that abortion is murder. It seems that even the most stringent states-”rights” advocate would oppose allowing states to allow their citizens to kill each other. Therefore I’m wondering how one can believe abortion is murder but see it as a state-to-state issue.

Logically, I don’t understand what you wrote.

Based on your response, that much is clear.

That being the case, you don’t think murder should be illegal on a federal level?

It isn’t, unless you kill a federal employee.

It isn’t

No?

“That being the case, you don’t think murder should be illegal on a federal level?”

Dolphin, unbelievable. The state prosecutes murder, so no I don’t think murder should be illegal on the federal level.

The state prosecutes murder, so no I don’t think murder should be illegal on the federal level.

Ok, let me rephrase with your words. You think “arguments like [murder] should be made at the state level?”

Don’t you think murder ought to be one of those things that shouldn’t be legal in any state?

Of course it shouldn’t, but I don’t live in any state.