Question:  Isn't it the case that one can treat the federal-state relationship as horizontal (though not entirely), as opposed to vertical?  In fact, isn't that the position of the inaptly named Federalists?  That is to say, the jurisdictions of the federal and state governemtns should overlap as little as possible, such that the States regluate that which which is best regulated on a local level, and the federal government regulate what is best regulated more globally. As for federalism being a huge pain in the posterior: The theoretical problem confonting us today is the same as the one confronting Madison: Whereas a central government minimizes corruption at the local level, it simultaeously makes corruption possible at the global level.  Federalism is founed, in parrt, on the belief that the smaller the government, the easier it is for it to captured by "special" interests.  The prolem we have today is that even the federal government is "small" compared to the size of "special" (corporate) interests. To the extent that certain States are doing a poor job protecting certain inalienable rights (notably civil rights), then federalism is good if those states can be forced to act via the edicts of national government.  However, to the extent that the States are doing a better job than the feds (more and more likely under the reign of King George II), then moving power to the states may the better thing.  Although those same special interests are entrtenched in state governments as well, it requires much more work to lobby 50 state legslatures, as opposed to one federal legilature.       Justin Schwartz <jkschw@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> > >Justin Schwartz wrote: > >>Still, despite our anachrobistic Federalism, states are largely >>admistrative regions. > >Some patriot you are! The federal system is so essentially American - part >of the stupid separation of powers - that to dismiss it so makes me wonder >just what you love about the U.S. Oh, I like the separation of powers, but that's horizontal--it means that the executive is not supposed to mess with the judiciary. Federalism is vertical, defining the relationwhip between the states and the feds, and aside from providing amusement for jurisdictionally minded lawyers like myself, basically a huge pain in the tuchus. Most patriots love >the Constitution, and since that document is all about the separation of >powers, An expression that occurs nowhere in the d! oc! ument . . . . But it is a doctrine embodied in the thing. it's kind of weird to dimiss this essential >feature as an anachronism, and the states as merely administrative regions. Couple years ago I nearly gave one of Posner's then-clerk's (now a NWU Law prof.) a heart attack by saying that, he agreed with you. Still, I'll stand my it. If you want a constitutional justification, see Amendment XIV. The whole Constitution is an anachronism, but I'm guessing >you don't think so. You know I don't. So what do you like? Not the tune of the SSB, >which is pretty awful, or the lyrics, which are too. Jazz? You don't have >to love the rest of the package to love that. The Declaration? The >Interstate Highway System? I'm confused. As I said, the SSB is a pretty poor song. For the rest, do you love NYC? If so, why? Justify, please. I don't apologize for my sentiments. I don't insist that anyo! ne! share them. And I don't find this conversation productive anymore. As I say, y'all can write me off as a really poor leftist. But probably you have anyway. jks _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl">Sign-up for Video Highlights</a> of 2002 FIFA World Cup