Take it back – The Rise of Neofederalism (Part 1) [Dave in Fla]

You say you want a revolution

To my knowledge, the United States is unique in that each state operates almost as its own country. The federal model establishes a number of roles filled by the federal government, but outside of those roles all other responsibilities of governance are left to the states. Of course, we have seen the erosion of this model over the last decades, but in principle it is still unique. Every other country in the world operates using a national model, where policy implementations and police enforcement tend to be dictated from the top. It is fair to say that individual states have more autonomy for establishing laws and conditions than any peer state or province in other countries. This was particularly shown during the COVID plandemic, where the responses were wildly different between different states, resulting in significant differences in economic outcomes.

Leveraging the power of states to chart their own course is a tactic that the left has used for half a century to push their agenda. Now that they have succeeded in taking the reins of the federal behemoth, they are focusing on using the administrative state to impose their will on the rest of the country. A country that does not want their vision of America, as I discussed in my post on demographics.

But their shift toward a federal focus leaves an opportunity, a place where they have now abandoned the field. They only have so many troops for this fight, and they can’t fight on every front. Individual states are where the opportunities for victory lie, ironically due to the success of leftist initiatives in the past. Let’s take a look at some examples that show how state initiatives ended up driving national policy.

The Clean Air Act

In 1975 the Clean Air Act established a national standard for the levels of emissions that are permissible for automobiles. However, when the Act was established, an exemption was issued for California. The EPA legally must issue this exemption to the state for them to establish rules that are stricter than the rest of the country. The current exemption was issued in 2013.

The reason that California was granted this exemption is that they got to the issue first. They had already put emission laws into effect prior to 1975, therefor to keep from overruling the existing state laws, the exemption clause was added to the Act. The practical result of this exemption is that California dictates to the rest of the country what kinds of automobiles they can drive. The automakers aren’t going to bother building two types of cars for sale in the United States, so cars that are able to meet the more stringent California requirements are what are sold to everyone. This exemption to the Clean Air Act has become the only operable feature of the Act itself, and California has threatened to sue if the exemption is ever rescinded. This example shows that a single state does have the power to regulate itself, even if it imposes a burden on businesses that operate nationwide. The courts don’t care about inconvenience to businesses.

Marijuana Laws

In the last few years there has been a rush to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. First was the push for medical marijuana, but that soon morphed into open marijuana use within many states. These laws are in direct conflict with federal law, where marijuana use is still a crime.

The basis for this disconnect is two memos issued by the Obama Administration’s DOJ. These memos outline conditions where the DOJ would look the other way and not prosecute federal laws, if states passed laws in compliance. What is interesting is that these memos are specific for marijuana, yet Oregon just passed its new law that legalizes all drugs, going far beyond the context of the DOJ memos.

The practical effect of the situation is that state laws have usurped federal law, in the case of Oregon without any underlying precedent. While none of this has been tested in court, there is nothing that stops the DOJ from rescinding those memos and prosecuting recreational drug users for federal crimes. However, if they did the likelihood is that the state laws would be ruled as taking precedence.

There are many other examples where state laws have driven national policy. The Right to Repair law in Massachusetts forced automobile makers to enter into an MOU in 2014 to guarantee access to car telemetry by 3rd party repair shops. The automakers did this rather than fight another 49 lawsuits.

Neofederalist Strategy

So how do we use these precedents to push our agenda, rolling back the leftist cancer that is destroying our country? First, keep in mind my first two essays. Our political philosophy represents a majority position in the country as a whole, and in the majority of states. Also voting laws are being strengthened to allow our votes to count. I have read your comments, and I can’t argue with you. The 2020 election and many others in the past make us question whether voting matters. But for the survival of our philosophy and ideals, it must be made to matter. In the end, our victory depends on the voters in places like Pennsylvania forcing their political will to be acknowledged. It means putting the right people into the legislature, getting a governor that respects the will of the electorate, and removing judges who won’t uphold the law. And while fixing states like Pennsylvania is crucial, using the political power that we already have in states like Florida and Texas is the lynchpin for taking our country back.

The examples above show the strategy that allows states to establish their own laws to govern on a range of fiscal and social issues. If a state can establish laws before any law is set by Congress, then they have a dominant position to demand that their law not be affected by federal legislation. Even if the legislation does exist, if the law or administrative rule is not identified as an enumerated power within the Constitution, the state law has a very good chance of prevailing in the courts. The winning strategy is to use our demographic advantage in the Red states to establish laws enshrining our principles and demonstrate the success of our model of governance.

Ace talks often about a National Divorce. We wonder what that would look like. I contend that it is major states like Texas and Florida enacting laws and policies that act as a magnet. Other states will follow suit. Liberals that don’t like the conditions will leave for states that better suit their tastes, while those with conservative leanings migrate to the Red states. By taking control of the educational process, within a generation the leftist cancer will be rolled back in these states, and their economic success will ensure they continue to dominate the national discourse. Eventually, they also retake Congress from the Uniparty by controlling the majority of legislative districts and states.

Since this post is reaching movie review length, I’m going to provide numerous examples of how this strategy is already playing out throughout the country in Part 2. Stay tuned!

posted by Open Blogger at 04:23 PM

| Access Comments