Redstate

Thank you, Fred, for explaining a vote that has been very easy for some to contrue anyway they wish (depending on what they are trying to get out of it). Hearing it straight from the source is quite helpful and encouraging!

Federalism is like truth... it hurts sometimes but it always works.

Retired US Senator Fred Dalton Thompson WINS California Republican Assembly Straw Poll

The following are unofficial results, provided on-site from the convention location by CRA activists Bob Rego and Scott Folkens of San Bernardino County:

1. Fred Thompson: 28 votes

2. Duncan Hunter: 22 votes

2. Mitt Romney: 22 votes

3. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX): 14 votes

4. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO): 9 votes

5. (tie) Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): 8 votes

5. (tie) Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: 8 votes

6. US Senator Sam Bownback (R-KS): 3 votes

US Senator John McCain, Former Cabinet Secretary Tommy Thompson, ex-Arkansas Guv Mike Huckabee all recieived zero votes in the CRA straw poll. Organizers failed to include former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.

The California Republican Assembly is expected to soon issue a press statement on the results of their convention and the non-binding presidential straw poll.

Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else – who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.

God bless you!

When you call up folks to work on your campaign, count me in.

The fact you understand federalism, sir, probably makes you unique among other candidates for the nomination. Your analysis is dead on, and unfortunately it is rare to come across anyone these days with a handle on what should be a core principle for Republicans in general and conservatives in particular.

Dear Senator,

I just read your remark--and for the first time this election season, I am really looking forward to this election season.

I don't even think I agree with you on this issue, but I want to.

The resolution--the manliness--of your rhetorical style is so freshing.

If you write stuff like this, how can you not run?

I swear, if you flake out on us and leave us to Rudy, Mitt, Johnny, and the rest of the seven dwarves, I'm gonna personally come to the set of Law and Order and TRY to kick your ass.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I couldn't say it better myself.

permit me to go off topic here,
I think you will find that you have many supporters here at Redstate who would like to see you make a run for the Presidency of the United States.
I would hope that when you make the announcement of your intention to run,that you do it here at Redstate.
Thank You.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

Thank you, Senator.

In Vino Veritas

Apart from the substance, there's the fact Thompson can present a coherent argument, without recourse to bumper-sticker bromides and without triggering the attendant insult to my intelligence. It's a dazzling rebuke to the others in the sweepstakes, from both parties, possibly excepting Mr. Guiliani.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Senator,

Very well said. I agree with you on your analysis of federalism and I appreciate your explanation of your votes.

I believe you should refer to "affecting" commerce rather than "effecting" commerce; however, the latter has some meaning . . . just not what I suspect you intended.

Please run. Count me as a supporter.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

"Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things – especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. "

It has been many years since a candidate of either party has presented such a lucid and convincing argument based on any philosphy. It seems all we get anymore is some watered down pablum aimed at the 'lowest common denominator'.

Please sir, RUN! We truly need someone who has the backbone (and clear understanding of) to advance conservative positions.
You have my support if you do.

We need someone who not only understands Federalism, but can communicate that understanding with ease. Heck, even I understood you without my eyes rolling up in the back of my head; trust me that is no easy feet.

Peace and Blessings to you,

Pam West

Glad to see you back at RS. And, uh,... if you need any more bloggers at non-campaign HQ, just let me know :)

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

Seantor Thompson,

I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I have a couple of questions about the stand on tort reform and class action suits.

I believe that in the past year or two congress passed a law to address the issue of nationwide class action suits brought based on a local interpretation of state statute. I would be interested in your position on the scope of class action lawsuits brought in jurisdictions other than federal courts?

Also from a federalist perspective what regulatory authority should a jusrisdiction have over production that does not take place in that jurisdiction? Who is the state of Califirnia regualating if they say that the Califirnia CAFE stardard must be more stringent than federal regulations. It seems that federalism, the free market and the free movement of citizens will address that problem, lots of SUVs and Pickup trucks will be sold in Reno and brought into California. Under the concept of Fedrealism I don't see that California should have any recourse against manufacturers if private citizens bring products into a juristiction that the products do not meet the local standard.

Thoughts?

Please run.

You will be doing a disservice to your country and party if you sit this one out.

Fortuna Favet Fortibus

We need you Fred Thompson! You're ability to "straight talk" is something that our country needs. When you decide to run, I'm ready to work for you in Mississippi! I have already been pushing your name to all my friends and family. Run, Fred, Run!

"The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
- Karl von Clausewitz

I appreciate you coming on and tackling IN DETAIL an issue that has been tossed out there.

I don't expect to agree with every position you take, but I am very excited at your approach to the challenge. You're not hiding behind some press release about this or that, you're willing to delve into the details.

Also, the fact that you can recall (whether it is from the top of your head or from notes) what was going on at that time, several years back, makes me feel good about how you'll do on your feet during the campaign.

Just be sure you do one thing before you announce:
o Figure out the price of a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs -- cuz you WILL get asked :-)

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

An intelligent, articulate, and witty defender of conservative principles even when applied to a controversial situation is needed right now. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be said. Sir, if you run, I will be volunteering in your campaign.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

I was very happy to see that line "by Fred Thompson" at the top of this article. Too often, legitimate concerns are raised by members of the media, blogosphere, or the general public only to be ignored by the subject of those concerns - leaving die hard supporters to defend the positions of someone they don't even know personally.

As to your point, Mr. Thompson, I wholeheartedly agree. Federalism, or "Frederalism" as I sometimes like to call it now, definately has a place in gov't today and all too many people have forgotten about it.
_______________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

Doesn't he realize that when you run for office you have to propose legislation to improve whateveritis that's bothering people?? And if you win, you've got to carry some bills like you said you would? And if they pass, you brag about it in your next campaign, but if they don't, no problem, just say the other guys VOTED AGAINST BLAH BLAH BLAH, so you can present yourself in easy black-and-white terms?

He just doesn't get it does he.

Here it is:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliNjY2YTFjMjY4NmRmOGQ5OTVjMjE2ZWM...

I think Ramesh is right, and the Senator is wrong. But still, after this exchange, I am MUCH more interested in supporting Senator Thompson.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Looks like Ramesh didn't do his homework on this issue, and Fred did.

Dear Mr Thompson,

It is a pleasure and an honor to hear from you again. I am in complete agreement that nice salesmanship has replaced principles in politics. I admire you to adhering to good solid principles, especially when the packaging to the public can be difficult to understand. I believe you make it understandable, and I thank you for being so well spoken.

Please run!

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

If one reads through Senator Thompson's various articles about federalism, one gets the notion that a president Thompson would nominate justices who hold similar beliefs in federalism. Such as Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia.

Whereas, other candidates such as Giuliani only give lip service to federalism, with meaningless statements such as "they like Scalia and Roberts", without ever stating why they like them.

Bottom line, if conservatives want future justices in the mold of Scalia/Thomas, you better vote for a candidate who actually EXPLAINS why they would support such nominations. Of all the candidates, Fred Thompson is the most clear on this issue, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he nominated justices in the mold of Scalia/Thomas. Whereas, I'd be shocked if Giuliani nominated anyone to the right of Sandra Day O'Conner.

A superb discussion of federalism and what is Constitutional (what I had thought was a truly and irretrievably LOST notion in DC and indeed most of America).

I believe you have done what you say you've done, for the reasons you say you've done them (confused yet?). But I want to curb my enthusiasm. I want to be skeptical, because everybody else disappoints.

I'll be checking your votes, committee votes, and your history, including statements made from the floor and in hearings if they can be had, to make sure you really are who you seem to be.

Because who you seem to be is Ronald W Reagan. Not because of any of that parallel-careers fluff, but because RWR was committed to, and an effective communicator of, true conservative principles, and he took no crap off of foreign powers (or the State Department, a commie-infested cesspool then and now). He taught conservatism directly to the American people -- not leaving us to figure it out through the prism of a hostile press.

Do those things, and I'll fight, fiercely and all-freaking-day, along with you.

If under close examination you end up looking alot like the other guys, well, I won't have lost my soul to another pretender.

So, I hope big things for you, and of you. For now, I'll be watching.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Madison saw the powers of the federal government to be limited and enumerated by the constitution, like a layer cake, where the federal powers were a thin layer on the top.

Today, federal powers look more like a marble cake, swirling through every facet of American life, except religion.

It's time to "get the boot of the federal government off the neck of the States".

I'm very happy you are addressing this issue, Fred, and I hope ALL of the candidates of BOTH parties have the guts to address this issue with the people.

Run FRED, Run!!

I've read some of Ponnuru's recent articles, and one thing is clear. Ponnuru seems to suggest that his dog in the race is John McCain.

It would be nice if nationally known journalists would "qualify" their statements by telling us who they support BEFORE writing articles critical of other candidates.

Excellent piece about an important issue that really crystalizes the importance of limited government. The Republican Party of the 2000s lost its way and became drunk with power. The party must understand the wisdom of limited government.

My enthusiasm for a Thompson candidacy only grows stronger!

Also, I love how Thompson doesn't come on here and milquetoast around or pander to one of the main contributors. He comes here and stands his ground with facts and analysis, stating his disagreement and position fairly and clearly. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, these are presidential qualities.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Senator Thompson, I support you. There are many of us out here that are spending every bit of our free time to work for your success as a candidate. We have organized, rallied, and put our trust in you. You show us that not everyone has to be an elite politician to inspire the people. I am from small town Tennessee, and thought that I was going to sit out this election, until you decided to just think about running. I have started a blogsite that promotes your experience in government, and have spent hours and hours reading through old press announcements to let everyone know that you have what it takes in all areas to be the leader that we all know you are. There are thousands and thousands of us, and we're just waiting for you to say the words: "I am announcing my candidact for the President of the United States."

I found Thompson's "retort on torts" humorous and deftly chiding, while Ponnuru's reply struck me as trying a little too hard to fight back, what with paens to "ridiculous" and "peculiar" and whatnot. I know it's all in good fun, but mark me down for saying that Thompson got the rhetorical win on this one, and probably on the substance, too.

Judges have the ability to knock down fees to plaintiffs' lawyers, and often do so. That is an appropriate check (along with state laws, if necessary), not federal one-size-fits-all regulation.

Good Thing.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority."-Andrew Jackson

I can't say yet whether I'll support you in the primaries, but I'd enthusiastically support you in the general.

Federalism: it's not just a good idea, it's the Constitution

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Senator Thompson appears to believe what he says and - amazingly - actually says what he believes. You can't fake what was written here. I'm not sure which is more exciting - reading these thoughts from someone considering running for President, or realizing that we finally have a prominent conservative that tackles these issues head-on and MAKES NO APOLOGIES FOR IT.

That's what Reagan used to do...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gotta support the team.
- David Puddy

He's the guy to win the War on Terror and the guy to explain the conservative philosophy proudly...

He needs to run...

In case anyone's interested, the legislation that Sen. Thompson introduced on this subject was called the "Federalism Accountability Act of 1999" [Fred and Ramesh, please include such info next time!]

Dear Fred:

It's an interesting bill. In order for a court to strike down a state law as pre-empted by a federal statute, the federal statute would have to explicitly say that preemption is intended, or else there must be a direct conflict so that the state and federal laws are irreconcilable.

Apparently, courts would no longer be able to preempt state law merely because state law allegedly impedes the achievement of a federal objective, or because federal law allegedly occupies the field. Frankly, I like this bill. The usual rule of statutory interpretation is that courts are supposed to reconcile statutes whenever possible, and the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 would have forced courts to do that. It would also stop legislators from passing the buck to unaccountable judges. Senator Thompson, you have the right idea here.

I'm not sure what Ramesh meant when he said that creative lawyers could find ways to evade explicit federal preemption. My only real concern here would be with the real-world results: how would it affect the economy? Would Congress shrink from explicitly prempting state laws that are harming the economy? And how much would this new congressional role increase the presence of lobbyists on Capitol Hill? But all in all, it sounds like a good idea that ought to be pursued.

And I'm with you Fred on the tabacco litigation issue. If states hire private attorneys at ridiculously high rates, then the states should not expect the federal government to come bail them out of trouble. If Congress butts in once, then the states will expect Congress to also butt in the next time, and the next after that.

One thing we really need is for Congress to require its members to focus on legislating instead of spending all their time fundraising. The First Amendment allows legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, so the best way would be to just ban all campaign fundraising by anyone until two months or so before an election. Plus full public disclosure, of course.

Sincerely,

Andrew

Fred won the CA republican straw poll now this happens:

"The writer behind the blog "PA for Hizzoner, Rudy Giuliani" put the best possible spin on the results of this weekend's presidential straw poll at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, a key barometer of GOP activist sentiment in the state. The headline was "Rudy Leads All Presidential Candidates," but the blogger had to confess the headline "may be a little deceptive," since theformer mayor actually got 16% and tied for second with Newt Gingrich, who spoke at the conference. The winner was non-declared candidate Fred Thompson, who "slaughtered the field" with 35% of the total vote.

LOL! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!!!!!!!!

As a first year student at Boston College Law School, I can't tell you how refreshing it was to read in your post what I've been arguing in my courses all year!

And don't worry, Senator Thompson -- despite their efforts to the contrary, there are more and more of us Federalists who are on their way into the legal community. Keep up the good work.

The first case involves the issue of “preemption.” Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don’t want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law, allowing elected officials in Washington “the federal court did it, I didn’t” excuse. This allows for no debate on the issue in Congress, just a decision by that source of so much conservative affection: the federal judiciary.

This misstates the issue and the law. The general rule is that if federal and state statutes conflict -- whether expressly or by implication -- the state statute is preempted. The general rule is found in the Constitution, is well known among lawyers, and is pretty easy to apply. Sen. Thompson's proposal was to change the general rule -- and, essentially, to reverse the burden. Under Thompson's view, a state statute will effectively preempt a federal statute unless the federal statute expressly states to the contrary.

I have some doubts about whether Thompson's view accords with the spirit of the Constitution. (I express no opinion whether it accords or departs from the Constitution's letter, and thus is or is not "Constitutional" in the legal sense.*) Indeed, the "debate" that Thompson purports to crave was, in fact, had more than 200 years ago, when the founders put the default rule (federal legislation preempts state legislation) into the Constitution.

Thompson is also disingenuous when he asserts that this issue is primarily a matter of interpreting the commerce clause. The commerce clause is involved, no doubt, but the bottom-line issue is whether Congress wishes to cede power that it already has under the supremecy clause t the States, which is what Thompson's legislation would accomplish. Moreover, contrary to Thomson, it is not "federalism" to allow individual states to effectively control national policy on issues where Congress has spoken. (Whether Congress should or can speak does involve the commerce clause, but Thompson's proposed legislation doesn't involve whether Congress should or can speak, but the effect of that speech -- i.e., the supremecy clause.)

Sen. Thompson's background is as a trial lawyer, in the same vein as Sen. John Edwards. It is no secret that federal preemption is a bane to trial lawyers; if there is no federal preemption, trial lawyers frequently can shop all fifty states to find the best venue and law to suit their position du jour. The result is that a Courthouse in Madison County, Illinois, sets national policy. That's not a good thing for either the public or the republic.

von

*In my view, it's possible for something to depart from the Constitution's "spirit" but be wholly Constitutional, i.e., the Constitution allows legislators to behave foolishly.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Regardless of the specifics of this particular debate (both the Sen. and Ramesh make good points), I want to thank you, Sen. Thompson, for highlighting the importance of federalism.

I know there aren't many of us out there, but I for one am willing to lend my support to the candidate largely on the basis of who best understands and articulates the principle of federalism. Maybe that makes me a cheap date, but I truly believe that returning to our federalist roots is the most important and long-lasting domestic agenda the conservative movement should be promoting at this time.

So far, based on these comments and other things I've heard you say and write, I have to say you're the leading candidate in that regard. Keep it up!

Senator Thompson, Please get into the race. Please run for the highest office in the land. The time is now, and the time is yours. Though no political race is every easy, I dare say that it would be yours to win. I think you would find the support you would receive.

Pick up the legacy of Reagan and lead our party out of darkness, out of the wilderness, as only a true conservative can. Lead our country, as only a true conservative is able to do. It is time for the man and the moment to meet

Sir, you have the principles, you have the vision this country so desperately needs. Do you have the desire? I certainly hope you do.

EliTheBean

RUN FRed run.

http://OsiSpeaks.com

With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.

But if you run Mr. Thompson I will come back to the GOP in 2008.

your voting in October of 2001 with respect to an Feingold amendment to the Patriot Act. Ninety Senators voted Aye to table this amendment, and you, Specter, and 5 liberal Democrats voted No. Why did you do it?

NAYs ---7
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Levin (D-MI)
Specter (R-PA)
Thompson (R-TN)
Wellstone (D-MN)

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance