Am I misreading you?  Are you saying that it is dangerous to have sovereign states?  Why?    Justin Schwartz <jkschw@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> > > > 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. Sorry if the metaphy was confusing. Thats' what I meant. >As for federalism being a huge pain in the posterior: The theoretical >problem confonting us today is the same as the one confronting Madison: ??? Au contraire. He had to hammer a bunch of statelets into a nation. We don't. >Whereas a central govern! me! nt minimizes corruption at the local level, it >simultaeously makes corruption possible at the global level. Not really a central issue for Madison. >Federalism is founed, in parrt, on the belief that the smaller the >government, the easier it is for it to captured by "special" interests. What do you mean, Federalism? For Madison it meant a strong central govt. For modern neo-Federalists (anti-Federalists in Madisonian terms) it means a weak central govt. >The prolem we have today is that even the federal government is "small" >compared to the size of "special" (corporate) interests. No, it's not. It's just in bed with them. >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 th! e ! 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. The point's been noted. But I'm not talking about practical medium term politics in that sense, but the fact that Madison's compromise, with a pretense that states are sovereign, is anachronistic. And, as the Supremes are currently showing us, dangerous. jks _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.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