Bush, Hill allies seen eroding states’ rights

President Bush and allies in Congress, traditionally champions of small government and states’ rights, have pursued policies that expand the powers of Washington in the schoolroom, the courthouse, the home and the doctor’s office.

Some conservative critics fault Republicans for passing or promoting legislation and regulations that make Washington the final arbiter on environmental standards, class-action lawsuits, medical-malpractice cases and Internet taxes.

These efforts sometimes have come over the objections of states and often at the urging of business.

The extent to which the Bush administration has subordinated states’ rights is “somewhat breathtaking,” said Michael Greve, who heads the Federalism Project at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Increased federal power traditionally has been associated with Democrats, creators of the New Deal and supporters of the 1937 Supreme Court decision that gave Congress, with its authority to regulate interstate commerce, wide berth in entering areas that were the prerogative of states.

When Rep. Newt Gingrich led Republicans to a majority in the House in 1995, he stressed that “we are committed to getting power back to the states; we are committed to breaking out of the logjam of federal bureaucrats controlling how we try to help the poor.”

But Mr. Gingrich’s commitments often required states to fall in line with federal policy: Some money available under the massive 1996 welfare-reform law, for instance, was tied to states starting abstinence-only education programs. States seeking money for new prisons under a big crime bill were required to show that criminals were serving 85 percent of their sentences.

Mr. Bush, the former governor of Texas, ran as a strong states’ rights advocate. During the Florida election dispute, however, it was Al Gore who was forced to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Florida state Supreme Court should have the final say on a recount. Mr. Bush insisted that the highest federal court step in.

As president, Mr. Bush has significantly increased the federal government’s reach with two of his biggest legislative achievements.

The “No Child Left Behind” education act inserts federal testing requirements and progress reports in an area that has been under state and local control. The “Patriot Act,” a result of the September 11 terror attacks, gave federal law enforcement greater authority to supersede states where necessary in investigations and prosecutions of criminal activity.

The education act, Mr. Greve argues, was “really a big, big marker in many ways, and a big, big turnaround.”

Republicans recognize the dilemma of being both proactive legislators and pro-states’ righters.

“I am essentially a states’ rights person. … I believe the federal government often usurps a lot of states’ rights,” Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, said last year in explaining why his proposal to limit federal highway money to states that provide illegal aliens with drivers’ licenses is a federal rather than a state issue.

David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates limited government and individual liberties, said there are inevitable tensions when conservatives try to use federal power to override the actions of more liberal state governments.

Story Continues →