Is it suddenly more acceptable to shoot judges these days? From reading the headlines, you’d certainly think so. In a sad new trend, the taboo against such violence apparently is eroding away—at least in the eyes of a certain segment of society. The recent shooting of Nevada family court Judge Chuck Weller is merely the latest, well-publicized example of this phenomenon.

But it’s an election year. Thus, federal officials have been quick to respond with proposals to cure the violence.

Last November, a courthouse security bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa) and Patrick Leahy (R-Vt). Following the attack on Judge Weller, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) quickly moved to push the proposal through the Senate. A few weeks ago, the full Senate adopted the measure as an amendment to the pending Defense Authorization Bill.

The legislation increases funding for state courthouse security and enacts tougher criminal penalties for certain actions against federal judicial personnel. Approval of the provisions prompted Reid to issue a victory statement: "Legislation will send federal funds to add bullet-proof windows, hire additional security"! Presumably, few Americans are opposed to such laudable objectives, particularly in light of recent events.

So, it’s a no-brainer. The legislation is a good idea—right? Wrong.

Federal officials act as if the desirability of such security expenditures, as a matter of policy, is the only issue that should be considered during legislative debates. It is not. Another, equally important question is nearly always forgotten in recent years: Is this particular problem properly the sphere of the U.S. Congress, or should it be handled locally by the states?

To the degree that Reid’s legislation impacts state (as opposed to federal) courts, Big Brother has inappropriately usurped responsibility for this problem. Federal officials likely have good intentions, but they are butting in where they do not belong.

It’s the forgotten value of federalism—a principle that was as important to the founding generation as it is unimportant to many modern Americans.

Federalism. A word that flows easily from the lips of a lawyer, but which is not often taught outside of law schools. Federalism refers to the constitutional division of power between our state and national governments. The U.S. Constitution grants certain powers and responsibilities to the national government. These areas include those that require national cooperation, such as foreign affairs, national defense, and interstate commerce. Under our Constitution, all other power is explicitly reserved to the states.

But why does it matter whether your local legislature or the U.S. Congress provides a solution to any given problem?

The Founders would have given a simple, straightforward answer: Freedom is best protected when legislative power resides close to home, because voters have a greater impact on local decision-making than on national decision-making.

Consider an easy example: A governmental entity wants your property because it has decided to build a freeway on the spot where your home now resides. But other options exist, and you want the government to choose the alternate route. Would you rather argue your case before the Dallas City Council, the Texas state legislature, or the United States Congress?

The answer is easy. You’d rather argue before the Dallas city council, because you have a greater chance of succeeding in your quest. Each Dallas city councilmen represents fewer people, on average, than either Texas state legislators or congressmen. Because the councilman needs fewer total votes to win, he cares more about a smaller number of disgruntled constituents. If you and your neighbors organize a march of, say, 30 people in front of City Hall, your voices would have a much bigger impact than if you were to organize the same march in front of the U.S. Congress.

Why, then, do modern Americans default upon federal action when presented with a problem? We should instead default upon state and local action until a case is made for the necessity of a national solution. By keeping our laws and regulations local whenever possible, we ensure that our freedom receives the greatest possible protection.

The Founders were wise enough to recognize this fact, although the modern Supreme Court has not always seen fit to uphold this constitutional requirement of federalism. (But that’s a whole new article.)

For the record, this author certainly believes that violence against judges requires a government-funded solution—and words such as those hardly ever flow from this pen! But a good policy can become a bad one when enacted by the wrong arm of government. In this situation, a case has not been made that a national solution is necessary. Thus, federalism requires that the problem of state courthouse violence be left for the state governments to fund and resolve.

Admittedly, the funding championed by Reid for courthouse security was fairly modest, as federal expenditures go. The bill appears to be something of a symbolic gesture in an election year. But minimal or not, the bill is representative of a consistent problem in the U.S. Congress: Federal officials seem to believe that no problem is too big or too small to benefit from federal oversight and assistance. Few attempts are made to limit the sphere of federal action.

Here’s hoping against hope that the Defense Authorization Bill will be stripped of its provisions for state courthouse security. Perhaps someone will remember the importance of federalism for a change.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment