I always find it interesting that the tables have turned. Historically, the Dems have favored a strong Federal government. But, when it's not their political party in control, they suddenly flip and push for state and local governmental power.
Of course, you could just as easily make the case for Republicans, who are just advocating for the inverse. That being said, issues like immigration seem like obvious Federal issues vs. those that should be decided at State or lower levels.
I always find it interesting that the tables have turned. Historically, the Dems have favored a strong Federal government. But, when it's not their political party in control, they suddenly flip and push for state and local governmental power.
Of course, you could just as easily make the case for Republicans, who are just advocating for the inverse. That being said, issues like immigration seem like obvious Federal issues vs. those that should be decided at State or lower levels.
I think it's because 99.99% of us really have no rock-hard principles when it comes to such abstractions as the best division of powers in a federal structure. The few people who really care about that sort of issue above all others are likely weirdos. Most people care far more about policy. If your state government is trying to enact policy you like, you'll support the state. If they aren't, you'll support the feds to come in and put a check on them. And that's going to outweigh any vague notions about the ideal form of government you hold in your head almost every single time.
Edit to add: to clarify, although you didn't use the word hypocrisy, that's the usual explanation by most. I think it's less about hypocrisy and more about false justifications. We refer to things like federalism simply because they offer easy backing for our positions, while arguing the policy itself can be much messier.
I always find it interesting that the tables have turned. Historically, the Dems have favored a strong Federal government. But, when it's not their political party in control, they suddenly flip and push for state and local governmental power.
Of course, you could just as easily make the case for Republicans, who are just advocating for the inverse. That being said, issues like immigration seem like obvious Federal issues vs. those that should be decided at State or lower levels.
I think it's because 99.99% of us really have no rock-hard principles when it comes to such abstractions as the best division of powers in a federal structure. The few people who really care about that sort of issue above all others are likely weirdos. Most people care far more about policy. If your state government is trying to enact policy you like, you'll support the state. If they aren't, you'll support the feds to come in and put a check on them. And that's going to outweigh any vague notions about the ideal form of government you hold in your head almost every single time.
Edit to add: to clarify, although you didn't use the word hypocrisy, that's the usual explanation by most. I think it's less about hypocrisy and more about false justifications. We refer to things like federalism simply because they offer easy backing for our positions, while arguing the policy itself can be much messier.
Agree to some extent. Just a note that this goes deeper, and is (or should be) dependent not only on one's theory of federalism, but also constitutional interpretative techniques. Textualists and even original public meaning originalists have some gymnastics to perform to justify federal immigration enforcement.
AI Overview
The Founding Fathers did not foresee the extensive, exclusive federal immigration enforcement system that exists today
. During the founding era, immigration was generally encouraged and largely unregulated at the national level, with some state-level involvement in managing ports.
Key points regarding the founders' views and the Constitution:
Absence of Explicit Power:The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government a general power to control or restrict the entry of immigrants. The only relevant explicit power granted to Congress is the authority to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" (the process of granting citizenship), which the founders did not view as the power to ban immigration itself.
Encouraged Immigration:Most founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, favored a relatively open and liberal immigration system to help settle the new nation and provide asylum to the "persecuted of all Nations".
State vs. Federal Role:For the first century of the United States, individual states handled most matters related to the arrival of foreigners. Early federal laws primarily focused on naturalization and did not establish a comprehensive enforcement system at the borders or in the interior.
Views on Federal Authority:Prominent founders like James Madison argued that the power to deport "friendly aliens" was not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, suggesting a limited view of federal authority over non-citizens already in the country.
Evolution of Federal Power:The concept of broad, exclusive federal power over immigration and its enforcement developed much later. This power was established by the Supreme Court in the late 19th century (specifically the 1889Chinese Exclusion Case) and the early 20th century, based on the principle of national sovereignty and the federal government's authority over foreign affairs and interstate commerce, not explicit constitutional text or the original intent of the founders.
Creation of Enforcement Agencies:The need for specific federal enforcement authorities only arose after Congress began passing comprehensive immigration laws in the late 1800s, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The first dedicated federal immigration enforcement agency was created in 1891, nearly a century after the Constitution was ratified.
In essence, the modern system of federal immigration enforcement is a later development driven by subsequent legislation and judicial interpretations of federal power, not a direct anticipation or design by the Founding Fathers.
I always find it interesting that the tables have turned. Historically, the Dems have favored a strong Federal government. But, when it's not their political party in control, they suddenly flip and push for state and local governmental power.
Of course, you could just as easily make the case for Republicans, who are just advocating for the inverse. That being said, issues like immigration seem like obvious Federal issues vs. those that should be decided at State or lower levels.
I think it's because 99.99% of us really have no rock-hard principles when it comes to such abstractions as the best division of powers in a federal structure. The few people who really care about that sort of issue above all others are likely weirdos. Most people care far more about policy. If your state government is trying to enact policy you like, you'll support the state. If they aren't, you'll support the feds to come in and put a check on them. And that's going to outweigh any vague notions about the ideal form of government you hold in your head almost every single time.
Edit to add: to clarify, although you didn't use the word hypocrisy, that's the usual explanation by most. I think it's less about hypocrisy and more about false justifications. We refer to things like federalism simply because they offer easy backing for our positions, while arguing the policy itself can be much messier.
Agree to some extent. Just a note that this goes deeper, and is (or should be) dependent not only on one's theory of federalism, but also constitutional interpretative techniques. Textualists and even original public meaning originalists have some gymnastics to perform to justify federal immigration enforcement.
AI Overview
The Founding Fathers did not foresee the extensive, exclusive federal immigration enforcement system that exists today
. During the founding era, immigration was generally encouraged and largely unregulated at the national level, with some state-level involvement in managing ports.
Key points regarding the founders' views and the Constitution:
Absence of Explicit Power:The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government a general power to control or restrict the entry of immigrants. The only relevant explicit power granted to Congress is the authority to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" (the process of granting citizenship), which the founders did not view as the power to ban immigration itself.
Encouraged Immigration:Most founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, favored a relatively open and liberal immigration system to help settle the new nation and provide asylum to the "persecuted of all Nations".
State vs. Federal Role:For the first century of the United States, individual states handled most matters related to the arrival of foreigners. Early federal laws primarily focused on naturalization and did not establish a comprehensive enforcement system at the borders or in the interior.
Views on Federal Authority:Prominent founders like James Madison argued that the power to deport "friendly aliens" was not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, suggesting a limited view of federal authority over non-citizens already in the country.
Evolution of Federal Power:The concept of broad, exclusive federal power over immigration and its enforcement developed much later. This power was established by the Supreme Court in the late 19th century (specifically the 1889Chinese Exclusion Case) and the early 20th century, based on the principle of national sovereignty and the federal government's authority over foreign affairs and interstate commerce, not explicit constitutional text or the original intent of the founders.
Creation of Enforcement Agencies:The need for specific federal enforcement authorities only arose after Congress began passing comprehensive immigration laws in the late 1800s, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The first dedicated federal immigration enforcement agency was created in 1891, nearly a century after the Constitution was ratified.
In essence, the modern system of federal immigration enforcement is a later development driven by subsequent legislation and judicial interpretations of federal power, not a direct anticipation or design by the Founding Fathers.
And also, I would argue, a response to changing circumstances in a changing world. The Constitution was written for a world that doesn't exist, anymore, and it's really, really hard to change, so we have to get creative.
And also, I would argue, a response to changing circumstances in a changing world. The Constitution was written for a world that doesn’t exist, anymore, and it’s really, really hard to change, so we have to get creative.
Originalism, strict constructionism, even textualism, all that stuff, just fantasy. The document exists to be amended by practice when necessity dictates, and we always have. Lincoln dramatically rewrote the Constitution without lifting a pen. That's what happens in real life.
Originalism, strict constructionism, even textualism, all that stuff, just fantasy. The document exists to be amended by practice when necessity dictates, and we always have. Lincoln dramatically rewrote the Constitution without lifting a pen. That's what happens in real life.
crazedhoosier is rolling over in his . . . hopefully bed, not grave.
Originalism, strict constructionism, even textualism, all that stuff, just fantasy. The document exists to be amended by practice when necessity dictates, and we always have. Lincoln dramatically rewrote the Constitution without lifting a pen. That's what happens in real life.
crazedhoosier is rolling over in his . . . hopefully bed, not grave.
Don't have to like it, but denying it does no one any good.
Originalism, strict constructionism, even textualism, all that stuff, just fantasy. The document exists to be amended by practice when necessity dictates, and we always have. Lincoln dramatically rewrote the Constitution without lifting a pen. That's what happens in real life.
I wouldn't call them fantasy. I like to think of them all as different, valid, and valuable interpretive methods. Each offers a way to do it, that by applying it, advances an important goal of "the law." Mixing and matching them, figuring out which is the right one in a certain case, or which combo should apply in a particular case is an art, not a science, and is very reliant on wisdom as much as intelligence.
