Can DUers explain to a lost European about "federalism" ?

[tocqueville]

1) The Federalist Society began at the University of Chicago Law School and Yale Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what it saw as the orthodox liberal ideology found in most law schools. In its Statement of Principles, the Society states that it is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of powers is central to the United States' constitutional form of government, and that the role of the judicial branch is to say what the law is, not what the law should be. (wikipedia)

(which from an European civil law democratic point of view seems perfectly oK : parliament make laws and judges APPLY them : you cannot say here that this law doesn't apply in my juridisction because I don't like it - this judge would be dead meat).

2) "The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court."

"In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue."

(Daily Kos)

or Roberts is supposed to be a Federalist

this doesn't make sense to me...

or is the white man speaking with a forked tongue ?

[mcctatas]

1. Historically...

federalism was seen as a way to limit the power of the national government by distributing it between federal and state government. For examle, both feds and state have certain concurrent powers (taxation etc.). States can't exercise powers belongin only to the feds, nor can they take any action that conflicts with federal laws. The Supreme Court is important because it is seen as the "umpire". The tenth amendment is key to this balance of power, and the courts move back and forth between greater states rights, and expanded federal power. It sounds like Roberts would be in favor of expanding states rights where abortion is concerned, thereby allowing some states to make it illegal...I think.

[tocqueville]

2. obviously the problem is the lack of LEGISLATURE

if Congress has passed a FEDERAL law saying that abortion is legal, local juridisctions couldn't go against it, according to Roberts own beliefs about how law should be enforced (despite his own alleged private beliefs)...

[mcctatas]

6. That is why I am thinking, it depends on the merits of the case brought

before the SCOTUS challenging Roe v Wade. They could not make a new law making abortion illegal, they could only overturn Roe, thereby setting up the opportunity for anti-choice groups to try to bring a new case to make it illegal. If he is truly a federalist, Roberts would have to be against a new federal law, preferring to turn the issue over to individual states. Unless he's just another lying repuke asshole.:grr:

[BillZBubb]

3. The Federalists were in favor of the proposed US Constitution.

The anti-Federalists, naturally opposed ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalists wanted a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, not a weak one. They had seen the sorry results of the weak Articles of Confederation. The newly created United States was inefficient and hamstrung under the Articles, which gave the individual States all the power. A central authority was needed to get the States to work together. To the founders of the US, Federalism meant a strong national government.

In the 20th century, typical of right wing Orwellian language and naming conventions, the right claimed Federalism meant stronger state governments and weakened Federal power. This, of course, was exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Federalist supporters of the Constitution had in mind. It is as if the anti-Federalists won the battle, but of course they lost in 1787. No wonder you are confused, most Americans are too.

The Federalist Society is just a right wing cabal of lawyers who want right wing court decisions. They prance around yelling about more state power until the states do something they don't like. Then they immediately switch to a national mindset. They are very flexible.

Legal precedent means nothing to them. They are zealots and as such, very dangerous.

[tocqueville]

5. thank you, it was my suspicion...

the white man spoke with a forked tongue....

[housewolf]

4. The Federalist Society / federalism

The Federalist Society is a group of very conservative lawyers coalesced around a right-wing ideology opposed to liberalism. Their aim is to roll back the liberal gains of the New Deal and apply a "strict constructionalist" interpretation of the constitution - in other words, interpreting the constitution strictly on its words, not an intent.

Federalism is an ideology of strong state governments and weak national government, basically where the national government does little more than provide for the defense of the nation.

The key point is that the Federalist Society is made up of lawyers, it's a lawyers special interest group, or perhaps it could be considered a think-tank.