The fight for federalism and liberty

America's Founding Fathers wanted a federal government of limited powers. But over the last fifty years we have seen a steady erosion in federalism as the national government takes over more and more control of our lives. I was recently reminded of this when I read an article in Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. By the way, the school will send you this interesting monthly if you contact imprimis@hillsdale.edu. Every month it has interesting articles by leading thinkers in various fields.

The article that caught my attention was by Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. He argues that there are two current issues which are being used by states to reassert federalism in defense of liberty – the new healthcare law and new EPA regulations.

Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health care law is unconstitutional. A federal judge back in December ruled in Virginia's favor that the mandate requiring people to purchase a private product (in this case, health insurance) is unconstitutional.

The first legal argument against this law is that the government's attempt to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mandate the purchase of a private product goes beyond Congress's power. There has never been a mandate like this in all of American history. In fact, King George III was told by his own lawyer that a colonial boycott of British goods was legal under British law because no one could be forced to buy against his/her will. Obama's administration could use the same argument (that the government has a right to mandate purchases of private products) to force us to buy cars, alarm clocks, gym memberships, orthopedic shoes, non-slip mats for our bathtubs. If Virginia and all the other states that are suing lose this case, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order the American people to buy or to do anything.

What's interesting is the argument put forth by the Obama administration. It says that the fine for not buying government-approved health insurance is not a penalty, but a tax. Why? Because a tax to pay for the healthcare scheme would be constitutional under Congress's taxing authority. Of course, what's sneaky and hypocritical about this is that when Congress and President Obama debated the healthcare law, supporters repeatedly said that the fine for not buying health insurance was a penalty, not a tax. Obviously they said this because of the negative associations with calling something a tax. So now the administration is flip-flopping on the issue.

Virginia is also fighting an EPA decision. Back in December 2009 the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants dangerous to public health because they are alleged to cause global warming. The EPA relied primarily on data from the United Nations global warming report. But we now know, due to leaked e-mails, that some of the world's prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment (Climategate). Much of the U.N. report relied on that questionable data, and this, in turn, was what the EPA relied on. Some scientists have rethought their positions on global warming. One renowned climate researcher, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who had been a long-time proponent of the global warming theory, admitted recently that data in that UN report was misleading and that "it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data" that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.

But is it such a big deal if the EPA is regulating CO2 emissions? Yes because some estimate the cost to every American household will be $3000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. These new rules would add nearly $1000 to the price of each new vehicle purchased. What's really amazing is that all this sacrifice and all this money spent will produce such minimal results. The EPA's own model shows that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03°F. Amazing and discouraging that people would put us through so much for so little gain. These increased energy costs will drive industries out of business or force them overseas, leaving us with fewer jobs.

As the Attorney General points out, we do need to care for the environment, but we also need to care for our economy. He notes that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. It is the wealthy countries which pay for environmental improvement. He says," The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets."

So it's important for us to get involved in this fight for federalism. Freedom is being eroded gradually but persistently, and we need to stand against those who would deprive us of it.