Right. It is reactionary to oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve or advocate pre-Civil War theories of state’s rights, or advocate for interpretations of the Constitution that would exclude the ability to prohibit child labor, or enact basic civil rights legislation. Totally shot dead, kicked, shot again, buried, and then shot again - deservedly so.
Just because institutions
do exist does not mean they
should exist. That is the point. I don’t think anyone is advocating that after some clean sweep of the congress and senate that legislation be passed that completely wipes out all the changes made over the last 200 years in a single Congressional session. That would be disastrous.
However, conservatives and tea partiers are for the eventual dismantling of those institutions that are contrary to the enumerated powers in the Constitution. I fail to see how this is a position that should deservedly abolished.
Also, nobody disagrees with the ends. Limits on child labor and basic civil rights are good things. What person thinks turning back the clock, in principle, on these things? It is the means that bother people. The ends do not justify the means.
Read
Centesimus Annus and the proper role of the state. What is currently in place denies communities of a lower order their proper role. The
federal government is not the solution to the ills of the US.
Note that the opposition is to mostly to social programs at the
federal level, and to
federal interference in state matters. For example, why is it a
federal problem that farmers are growing corn instead of wheat? Or that intra-state truck drivers aren’t keeping valid travel logs? Or that dams built on lakes have too much silt behind them? Or that duck hunters are using lead shot instead of steel? Really, why are these
federal issues?
Societies evolve. They should evolve slowly, and in accord with tradition and fundamental principles. Re-litigating issues from eighty or a hundred years ago is, in most cases, irrational and not conservative, because it is ultimately as disruptive as any other radical change. (Note: I said most cases). At some point, looking to the past becomes ideological and a form of social engineering.
Again, nobody here is suggesting eliminating the ends achieved. The goal is to have the society of a proper order manage these issues. Why is the federal government taking upon itself the responsibilities properly delegated to communities of a lower order?
Further, I note that your examples deal with justice. Like I said, I don’t think people object with the ends of these federal cases of intervention. But what about other issues unrelated to justice, such as Medicaid, Medicare, NSF, Farm bureau, etc? The proper role of the government is not to provide services, but to guarantee fair and efficient access to services. Again, read
Centesimus Annus.
Unless we have uniform laws and some uniform enforcement, there will always be safe havens for abortion.
Do we have uniform laws with regard to rape? Drunk driving? Theft? Indecent exposure? Trespassing? “Unless we have uniform laws and some uniform enforcement, there will always be safe havens” for rape, drunk driving, theft, indecent exposure, trespassing, etc.
But perhaps I see your point. In today’s society, abortion by many is not seen as an evil. Thus returning it to the states would not immediately lead to abortion being reduced to the same same levels as rape, drunk driving, etc. But it is a step in that direction. Waiting until we can outlaw it at the federal level will, in my opinion, take longer than doing it state by state.
I’m not sure. Are you suggesting there is a Constitutional limit on federal police power that would prevent abortion from being federalized, or only a prudential limit?
Yes, there is a Constitutional limit. Federal police power with regard to murder is limited to those engaged in some federal activity. Like the example I mentioned. If Joe Blow (not a federal employee) murders Jane Doe (not a federal employee) in a quickie mart (not a federal installation), it is not a federal crime. So why should the federal government get involved.
Similarly with abortion. If Jane Doe (not a federal employee) procures an abortion at Planned Parenthood (not a federal installation) from a doctor (not a federal employee) and paid for it with her own funds (not funded by federal tax dollars), why should the federal government get involved?
You got it all figured out.