I remarked earlier (and derivatively) that federalism should be for citizens, not just states. Mark Levin takes issue with this comment, saying that federalism is “about state authority and the structure of our government as enumerated in the Constitution,” and that “[p]rotecting individual rights per se means everything and nothing.”

I’m not sure we really disagree. Let me try to explain what I meant, and see what Mark thinks. To start with: I think one of the reasons that federalism is a good idea is precisely that the division of coercive power protects individual rights. So far so good?

Also: The Constitution does not include the word “federalism.” It does, however, include many provisions that divide authority among the federal and state governments. Some of these provisions constrain the federal government, and some of them constrain state governments. A constitutional federalism—which is the most defensible federalism around—is not just freedom for state governments to do whatever they want to do. They should not be able to impose their laws extra-territorially: Madison County, Illinois, should not be able to make product-liability laws for the whole country and call it federalism. They should not be able to legislate on inherently national subjects: States can’t declare war or abstain from wars on their own, whatever Osama bin Laden believes. Mark: Disagree with anything here?

The Constitution’s limits on the federal government are not just there for the glory of the states. The feds may not assume certain powers even if every state in the Union wants them too. They are there for the citizens.

Assuming that federalism equals “states’ rights” creates two problems. The first is that limits on federal power will not be taken seriously if they do not protect states’ “sovereignty.” The Supreme Court has been much more likely to restrict federal power when state governments have yelped—but these may be precisely the cases where the political process is most likely to restrain federal power and where the court is least needed. The medical marijuana case, to return to the genesis of these posts, illustrates the point: Whether the federal government has the power to criminalize the medicinal use of marijuana probably shouldn’t turn on state policies, but it does in the Supreme Court.

The second is that constitutional limits on the states that are as much part of the federalist architecture as constitutional limits on the feds will be ignored. The Supreme Court’s record on the compact clause, the full faith and credit clause, and other state-restricting provisions of the Constitution, I think, amply bears out this concern.

I agree with Levin’s comments about the overpraise of Supreme Court cases that imposed pathetically weak limits on federal power.

Re: "...if every kiss begins with a bauble from Kay, then you're either dating, or married to, a whore."

I think I can visualize Andy Rooney saying that on 60 Minutes.

First, my problem with the Court's rationale in Lopez is that it's clearly fact specific. Same with Morrison. I've always felt praise from our corner for these decisions was overdone. I'm all for these decisions, but they're baby-steps. They left untouched the rationale for the broad holdings in Wickard v. Filburn and Maryland v. Wirtz.

Ramesh, my earlier comment about federalism being about state authority was in response to your earlier post in which you wrote, in part: "The Court seeks a federalism for states rather than one for citizens, as AEI federalism scholar Mike Greve puts it." I figured you knew that.

Ramesh - I probably agree with you that many liberals are advocating federalism in bad faith. That certainly seems to be the case of many pro-gay marriage neo-federalists who see nothing wrong with legalizing it at the federal level but who cry "what about federalism!?" when they hear of attempts to illegalize it at the federal level (assuming "illegalize" is a word).

Nevertheless, I personally see it as a step forward whenever the other side starts adopting your arguments rather than rejecting them. But I've got to go get ready for an engagement elsewhere. We shall continue this later, I'm sure.

Re Citibank, Jonah: Then the question is whether Citigroup is actually buying any good will; that's what I doubt.

Re marijuana: Thanks, Prof. Barnett, for your post, which adds to Adler's already helpful description of the Court's current jurisprudence. My point concerned what the Court's jurisprudence should be, so there's no disagreement here (nor do Adler or Barnett suggest that there is one).

Now to Jonah's column on liberal enthusiasm for federalism: I don't think liberals are, in fact, rediscovering the virtues of federalism. It's not as though they want states to be able to make their own policies on abortion or school prayer. The sort of "federalism" they want maintains all past liberal gains in imposing their preferred policies via the federal courts, while empowering litigation-happy state governments (or litigation-happy bits of state governments) to set national policies. Neither part of this mix is federalism. It's just liberals using power where they can wield it, which is an old story.

Noam Scheiber is bashing John Kasich's New York Times op-ed (registration required) on Social Security. He likes Kasich's idea of changing the formula for calculating benefits so that it rises with prices rather than with wages--a change that would solve Social Security's long-term solvency problem. What vexes Scheiber is that Kasich also supports private accounts.

"[I]f you allow today's workers to divert 25 percent of their payroll taxes into private accounts, cutting the benefits they're promised won't help you pay for it one bit. We were never counting on their payroll contributions to fund their own benefits; we were counting on their payroll contributions to fund the benefits of current retirees (and near-retirees)--benefits which, in the very next paragraph, Kasich promises not to cut.

"In effect, Kasich has spent the first seven paragraphs of his piece proposing a very reasonable way to save Social Security several trillion dollars, which would basically make it solvent. Then, in the final two grafs, he's proposing something that would cost several trillion dollars, which would immediately undermine the earlier proposal and leave Social Security in just as bad (probably worse) financial shape than when he started."

If you think about Social Security's solvency over the long run, then it does indeed make sense to cut the traditional benefits for today's workers in return for giving them investment options. It would be politically smart to fix the solvency problem as much as possible that way, and to rely as little as possible on changing the benefits formula.

But solvency isn't the only thing worth looking at. Social Security also offers young workers today a bad deal, and cutting benefits (or raising taxes) would make that problem worse. For Kasich to propose cutting benefits and then giving young workers something to compensate for it is not absurd, and no shell game (even if I am not sold on the particular mix of policies he is recommending).

Comedian Ron White (of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour) has a great bit on the diamond ads. He’s annoyed that they are so indirect. To paraphrase:

They started out as “Diamonds are Forever.”

Then it was—“Diamonds—They’ll leave her speechless.”

Why not just come right out and say it—“Diamonds—That’ll shut her up.”

I know, it’s sexist. But so are the ads. And Ron White is one of the funniest comics I’ve ever seen.

Ramesh - How so? I'm referring to Macy's policy of sending customers to Gimbels, putting the interests of the children ahead of the interests of the company etc. What part of Miracle on 34th Street am I missing?

Though now that we're talking about it, didn't we have a thing in here awhile ago about how it was outrageous that the federal government (via the post office) was the final word on Santa's existence? Or did we like it? I just can't remember.

An email: "I really, really agree--and other people look at me strangely whenever I bring it up. I suspect that-- as with the somehow-less-annoying Mastercard 'Priceless' ads-- part of the point is to say, 'Don't worry your pretty little consumer head about your credit card debt. You just keep running it up and enjoying yourself.'"

Me: Some, maybe most, of the Citibank ads have this tenor. Others, however, take an anti-spending message. I believe one of them goes, "He who dies with the most toys is still dead." I have never been able to figure out what the company thinks it is accomplishing with this campaign.

Yglesias responds Here. . More thoughtful comments -- or at least more comments -- to follow.

Here's another heartwarming missive re my Thanksgiving column:

War is,even at best, a murderous, vicious, hideous action on the part of one government, or at least its leadership, against a large number of innocent and defenseless people whose only fault was being the wrong nationality. As a human being, don't you feel just a little embarassed, showing youself in front of millions of other people as an obscene spectacle who finds something,(or who would even wish to find anything noble,uplifting,praiseworthy in the loathsome atrocity that is the American presence in Fallujah.)There are many things to truly celebrate about our country, but not this country's government's actions in a savage, unwinnable, and increasing genocidal conflict halfway around the world from people who are no danger to us. Next year, maybe you will write a more seemly column.

From an American stationed in Iraq in response to that Zaitchik guy I linked to this morning:

Anger sharks are swimming!!! That guy reminds me of some of the reporters who would buy a new set of khakis, show up in Iraq, and ask some the dumbest questions I've ever heard. One of my responsibilities in our operations center was giving them a brief overview and "entertaining" them until the brigade commander talked to them. The San Francisco Chronicle team was my favorite ("Do you derive any pleasure from killing Iraqis?"). The British papers were a close second.

Back to Zaitchik. Snipers targeting children? really? this guy objectively
believes that? Snipers lining up little six year old girls in their sights
and squeezing one off? Nice, guy. If a civilian is killed, it's an accident
and we make restitution with the family. It's an unfortunate effect of war.
If our soldiers are guilty of war crimes or some other violation of the
uniform code of military justice, they're prosecuted. For example, the
marine who tapped the guy in the mosque will have to give an account for his
actions. That's what a just society does.

Derb - I certainly take your point, and I am very reluctant to address this issue for fear of getting a lot of email from the mouth-breathers who think all such discussions return to Israel. Still, I'm not sure that loyalty has to be either/or or zero sum.

I suspect that you are more loyal to the United Kingdom than you are to, hmm, Costa Rica. This means in circumstances in which your support, moral or otherwise is torn between the UK and Costa Rica you will side with the UK, even if it's only a matter of rhetoric and cocktail conversation. Similarly, I am sure you are loyal to your friends and loyal to your family, but you are more loyal to your family than to your friends. This is probably rarely a problem except in those instances where the interests of your friends and the interests of your family come into conflict.

I agree with you about maintaining dual nationality, but I think dual loyalty is not so bad so long as the dual loyalties in question are not in conflict. For example, in almost any contest between Britain and France, I will root for Britain because as an American I feel a greater sense of loyalty to Britain than I do to France. Indeed, I would certainly be willing to argue that as a loyal American it is in America's interests to come to the aid of Britain if it were in a pinch, even if in the short term that created problems for America. Why? because loyalty to America must be rewarded with loyalty from America. Anyway, you get the point.

Well, Tim, I loooove that ad, although that has everything to do with the actress in question. I also looove this. The words say it all...

As I was writing about the Catholic vote for NRO, it occurred to me that there is one type of Catholic from whom we did not hear much during the campaign controversies about Catholicism in politics: the type of Catholic who a) is pro-life, b) is liberal on most other issues, and c) believes that Catholic politicians who support abortion should not present themselves for communion. There are plenty of Catholics who meet criteria a and b. But very few pro-life liberals were willing to say that politicians who support legal abortion should be denied communion. I can't think of one.

Among the small band of Catholic elites who are pro-life liberals, it may be that the felt imperative to maintain friendly terms with pro-abortion Catholic liberals sways people's views on the communion question. It may also be that they believe a strong form of the "seamless garment" argument: They believe, that is, that their church's teachings on war and poverty are just as practically definitive, and just as urgent, as its teachings on abortion. In either case, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that pro-life liberals in the Catholic church have let their liberalism compromise their pro-life stand.

Totally fair point. I hate those commercials too, from a reader:

With all the erectile dysfunction and male enhancement commercials on the air, you choose to be upset by a woman who will only kiss for a diamond? Better that than hearing another speaking slyly about how her aging husband “responds” to whatever the drug is this week, I say.

I think the evolutionary psychologists have more tact, but this reader gets to the heart of something here:

Jonah - I know this will likely automatically put me in the misogynist category, but am I the only one who has noticed that, while women typically categorize men as cavemen they are the ones who flip out over shiny rocks set in shiny metal? It's either some genetic throwback to primitive enchantment or women are just interested in the thought of copious amounts of money being spent on them (any doubts? Buy a woman a cubic zirconia and tell her it's real and observe her reaction when she finds it to be untrue). I'm not saying this about all women, mind you. I happen to be married to one of the few who cares little to nothing about jewelry.

This is not an E-mail about media bias (well not really). It’s about the best way to stay informed. This is a fairly obvious point I think, but I came across a great example of what I’m talking about today and I had to share it.

Whenever political debates pop up with friends I will be faulted for quoting something I read on NRO, whereas friends will often present their source saying something like “…it was in the New York Times?” with a question mark on the end as if to say “have you heard of it?” Now I read the Wall Street Journal every day, and various articles in the W Post or the Chicago Sun Times (I’ve learned to appreciate stories about guys attacking snow plow trucks). I find plenty of worthwhile stuff from all these sources, but if you really want to know what’s going on you have to read a debate, e.g. NRO, WS, TNR, Slate, etc. All these publications compete with each other for the best arguments, and they clearly account for each other’s arguments when creating their own.

Unlike, say, an AP story, writers for NRO know that if they make a significant gaffe, it will swing on a flagpole at an opposing publication for a long time. Andrew Sullivan knows if he gets lazy with an argument on gay marriage it could be quoted again and again for years an NRO. In other words, there is a much higher degree of accountability in the opinion press than there is in the MSM.

Take for example the following AP story that ran in today’s Sun-Times. An uninformed reader could conclude the following from this story: 1) All Iranians want a nuclear program and they will overthrow any government that tries to take a soft-line with Europe or the United States [how? Through elections I guess]; 2) The moderates (read: Good guys) want to go the European way and negotiate, but the mullahs, those hard-liners, have the popular will on their side and want nothing to do with it. Therefore it’s negotiate the European way or give into those popular mullahs.

Taking this example, I would argue that your arguments would be more sound and better informed if you read absolutely nothing, than if you tried to form an opinion off this story. Again, just one example. For five or six more each morning, watch the Today show. Would the NYT, AP, the Today Show and so on report this way if they had to account for their arguments? If Katie Couric knew her reporting would be comedy fodder for Good Morning America, do you think she’d actually try half the stuff she does? If you want accurate reporting you need accountability and you can’t get that in the MSM.

I think this has been reported several places at least in part but yesterday the Razumkov Center, which has done polling during the election campaign, publicized its latest poll numbers.

In a sample of 2,013 adult citizens taken November 25-29, the Razumkov poll shows that of those people who would participate in a third round (or repeat second round) of voting for the presidency, Yushchenko would take 56% of the vote and Yanukovych 40%. This is the largest margin to date between the two candidates.

This could explain why the Kuchma regime and Yanukovych too have floated the theme of a new election (remember the distinction between "new election" and "revote." They want to field another candidate, who they believe can close the 16-point margin that currently exists between Yushchenko and Yanukovych.

Several candidates come to mind for Kuchma: Former National Bank Chairman Serhiy Tyhypko and Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. Both could, according to Presidential Administration logic, compete with Yushchenko. Tyhypko said yesterday he would not rule out a presidential run. Lytvyn said he wants to remain speaker until 2006.

Even more important in the polling -- while before more citizens believed Yanukovych would become President not because he won the vote, but because he stole the election and got away with it. Now, the poll shows, 30% of the citizens believe Yanukovych will win the third round compared to 45% for Yushchenko. Previously the numbers were 58% Yanukovych would win compared to 19% Yushchenko would win.

These same numbers have most likely been given to the President by the Security Service, which also conducts sociological surveys.

Yushchenko continues to stand on repeat voting in the next 2-3 weeks. Polish President Kwasniewski announced yesterday that his 5-point plan also has a proposal for a repeat vote either the 19th or 26th of December. We'll see how talks in Kyiv develop today.

What is it?

Seriously, I was reading this post by Matt Yglesias offering the usual, if not entirely unfair, jabs at conservatives over foreign policy stuff. And it struck me, I really have no idea what liberals believe when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, I know about the more famous sentiments about multilateralism, the UN, etc., but I really have no idea what liberal foreign policy is. Criticizing, mocking and pointing out inconsistencies within conservative or "neoconservative" foreign policy is not an actual foreign policy itself. Indeed, the relentless and relentlessly tiresome charges of "hypocrisy" aimed at conservatives are in some way tributes to conservative foreign policy. You cannot be a hypocrite or inconsistent unless you have a principle in the first place to apply hypocritically or inconsistently.

Amidst all of their handwringing about what Democrats should be and do in the coming years, I really haven't heard much about foreign policy. You guys might want to get on that.

I'm pretty sure I said this last year around this time, but I see no reason not to repeat myself on such a weighty issue. I hate these omnipresent TV commercials from Kay Jewellers. I don't know if it's a nationwide chain or not. But the tagline is "Every kiss begins with Kay."

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if every kiss begins with a bauble from Kay, then you're either dating, or married to, a whore.

The military is messing with the enemy's mind. Good for them. My friend Mark Mazzetti has the details in the LA Times. Mark seems more concerned about it than most people will be, but that's his job.

I've never heard of Alexander Zaitchik but I am a fan of the New York Press, even if I don't get to read it that often. Which is why I think it's too bad they're running pieces like this Zaitchik guy's. He runs a long extended quote from my syndicated column on Thanksgiving in which I wrote that I often receive "wonderful, uplifting, heart-wrenching e-mails from Marines and soldiers or their families with similar stories of Iraqis' expressing their gratitude and relief that the Americans are doing the hard work of democracy and decency" and that I often see similar stories of American courage and decency on obscure websites.

And then he says "I wish I knew what 'obscure Internet sites' people like Goldberg get their wonderful, uplifting news from. Online these days, I keep running into reports of U.S. artillery slamming into hospitals and U.S. snipers targeting children. Officials claim these reports are insurgency propaganda, and some of it probably is."

Maybe Zaitchik has the answer to his own question. Maybe he's the kind of guy who seeks out the sort of stuff that has a very high probability of being enemy propaganda because that's the sort of news he really wants to hear? Or, maybe not. But his column certainly gives off that impression.

The larger point, though, is that the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States. Many of the same people who found it hard to say anything bad about Saddam Hussein find it equally difficult to say anything nice about pro-democracy demonstrators in Ukraine. Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire, or at least don't hate, the United States. I certainly don't believe, as President Bush sometimes simplistically says, that everyone who disagrees with American policies in Iraq or elsewhere "hates freedom." That's why it's so shocking to discover that some of them do.