Like Jonah Goldberg, I see Federalism as the solution to many of our problems. Why not let South Carolina outlaw abortion and Massachusetts allow Gay Marriage and California mandate tofu consumption?
I think Ramesh Ponnuru was looking straight at me when he penned his cover story to National Review a fortnight ago. (Gotta buy it, not online -- sorry). In short, he said "you guys who love Federalism so much, look at NYAG Eliot Spitzer. Wouldn't you guys like to see some Federals slap him down?" (I am paraphrasing.)
The WSJ Ed Page picks up the theme of overreach today as well:
WSJ.com - Paxil ManNew York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has sued so many people based on so little legal authority that it's almost hard to get worked up about it anymore. But it's worth making an exception for his recent lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, because it threatens to damage good science and public health.
[...]
The reality is that Mr. Spitzer has gate-crashed one of most regulated industries in the world. Though it may come as a surprise to the New York Attorney General, Congress has for better or worse given no little thought to drug regulation. It has amended the insanely detailed Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act some 100 times. Through it all one principle has remained intact: The only entity authorized to enforce federal drug law is the FDA.
And regardless of what state statute Mr. Spitzer pulls out if his magic hat, it is federal law that governs what drug information gets disclosed, to whom, and at what point in time. And for good reason. This country decided long ago that it was better to have a single agency distributing uniform drug info than to have 50 state attorneys general (and their tort-law retinue) with varied political agendas sending out conflicting safety messages.
[...]
All in all, there's something dangerous about a prosecutor making health-policy decisions for which he can't be held responsible. Whatever one thinks of the FDA, it is answerable both to the executive branch and Congress. Mr. Spitzer has to face the voters every four years, but will he take the blame for depressed kids who suffer because their doctors are scared out of prescribing Paxil?
AG Spitzer wants to:
-- set mutual fund fees (and likely dictate returns);
-- approve/reject drug approvals;
-- dictate the salary of the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange;
-- then he wants to be Governor of NY.Why? It will be a big step down in power when he doesn't have the Martin Act.
I am soul searching this week. The WSJ case is strong for a strong Federal presence in many legal purviews.
Posted by jk at June 21, 2004 09:40 AMHow do the first three of those jive with the interstate commerce clause?
Posted by: AlexC at June 21, 2004 07:35 PMHe doesn't need no stinkin' Constitution, he's got the Martin Act, giving him Jovert-style powers.
Calming down, it's a fact that a big-state AG from California or New York can disturb the market greatly and legally by removing his/her state and fragmenting the market. This is not only allowable, but under true Federalism would be desirable. And 50 potential Eliot Spitzers are hurled at the corporate sector. Scary.
They don't. Instead, they jive with a socialist interpretation of the phrase "all men are created equal." Spitzer sees it as his duty to help KEEP men financially equal despite the inequality of ability, ambition and achievement.
The proper function of a state prosecutor is to enforce objective laws (where he can find them) and go after every unscrupulous individual who abuses the power of his position for personal gain - financial and otherwise. Unfortunately for AG Spitzer, this would include... himself.
Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2004 08:28 AM