States Rights

Today I heard for what must have been the millionth time someone called into a radio show and claimed that health care issues (such as the Schiavo case) should be left up to the states. Social conservatives will complain about Roe v. Wade on the basis of States Rights. The conflict of federal versus state power is older than our Constitution.

Here's an interesting experiment you can try, when you hear someone make the States Rights argument. Listen to see if the person making the claim explains why a given question should be left up to the state. The caller I heard today didn't. Bloggers usually don't (if ever). A natural conclusion, then, is that people who call for States Rights only say so when they think they will get a favorable result in a given situation. Don't want Terry's tube pulled? Then it's not a state issue. Don't like Roe v. Wade? Then it's a state issue. Gay marriage? It's a state issue if decided by popular referendum, or a federal issue if decided by a conservative president and Congress.

If that's the extent of your rigorous analysis of federalism, you won't end up arguing very persuasively, because you're using federalism as a surrogate for some other argument.

With that in mind, and taking the most objective approach I can, I think those who clamor for federal intervention for Terry Schiavo (well, try reading that in the past tense, because the battle looks like it's over) are wrong to support federal intervention. I'm speaking as someone who is extremely wary of federal power, not as one who want Terry dead (because I would reinsert that tube in a heartbeat, given the opportunity). With any federalism issue, my default question is, Is there any reason we need the federal government involved in this? My answer is usually No. Does the federal government need to be involved in public education? No, because there is no real issue of conflict between states that needs to be equalized by a higher governmental power. Does the federal government need to be involved in military operations? Yes, because no one State can effectively handle foreign policy concerns. (And note, here, that our Constitution expressly governs military issues, and not public education issues. Our Founding Fathers were no dummies).

Does the federal government really need to be involved in entirely local health care issues? If you're reading this, and you want to try to make the argument that it does, please feel free to make that argument in the comments. But I don't see it. There is nothing of a national or interstate character about the Schiavo case. The very best you can do is argue that the federal government should step in when the state has committed a manifest injustice - but that would effectively put every state decision up for federal scrutiny, which encroachment of federal power should scare the crap out of every thinking person.

The melancholy outcome of this line of thinking is that, according to that approach to constitutional governance, Terry Schiavo dies at the hand of her highly suspicious "husband." My next post will be about separation of powers within the state, and my reasoning leads to the conclusion that Terry should live. But in this post, if you want to comment, I'd ask you to stick with the issue of federal power, and specifically: When and under what circumstances should the federal government intervene in a Terry Schiavo-like situation?