Oh, Please Make It Stop

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: That's the cornerstone of Roe versus Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Well, let's just be grateful she didn't go off the reservation and respond with the 13th, Amendment, which although not a Supreme Court decision, it has to be considered a possible response, given her command of logic and her understanding of government.

For instance, “federalism” is not the “belief (scary) that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.” Federalism is the term for a political system in which power is shared between the federal government and the governments of the individual states.

In the United States, the federal governments powers consist of the ones enumerated in the Constitution and the laws passed to give those powers form. Any powers not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution or created by the laws needed to carry out those powers belong to the people or the state governments. Thankfully, since the Fourteenth Amendment, all civil rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution are also enjoyed by citizens regardless of the state in which they live or are. States can give citizens more rights, but they cannot give them fewer. Finally, our system of government states that the federal powers trumps state powers when the two conflict, and not only that, the federal government, in the body of the Supreme Court, resolves the conflicts when the powers collide.

So you can't cite federalism as the reason why you disagree with the outcome of Roe versus Wade without pointing out where the federal government has overstepped its stated bounds. That's what Katie was getting at with her follow-up question “Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?” (The Court had already decided the right existed and that the right to privacy encompassed reproductive freedom eight years before Roe in Griswold v. Connecticutt) If the right does not exist in the Constitution, then the federal government has no say in the matter. The right to privacy, to exist at all, would have to be defined—or not—by the states. There would be no federally guaranteed right to an abortion. But you can't agree there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution AND then say you disagree with Roe versus Wade on federalist grounds.

The federalist response is just a Republican talking point. McCain used it on The View to dodge the question of whether he would appoint justices who supported overturning Roe v. Wade. Apparently, federalism makes you appear smart and knowledgeable on this issue, when really it's just a smoke screen to hide the fact that you want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, but you don't want to take responsibility for saying so.