Re-Examining States' Rights

To the Editor:

In his article of August 7, "The Left's Adoption of States' Rights," David Barron correctly observes that "states' rights" debates too often focus on the doctrine of states' rights, and not on the substance of the specific issues at hand. But Barron goes down that same road, and ends up condemning at legal doctrine, rather than the odious policy stands. that have sometimes hidden behind that doctrine.

There's nothing inherently evil about federalism; yet Barron writes that the "incantation of the federalism theme" is always "distasteful." Apparently because of its historical association with racism, Barron somehow concludes that states' rights arguments are always used to defend small-minded prejudice against the progressive drive of the federal government.

Barron thinks "the left" has just discovered federalism. Wrong. Black Panthers and ERAP ghetto organizers in the 1960s fought for the development and protection of local communities and values. And the federal government isn't always progressive: Barron should check his history texts for the details of a small run-in between Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Nation.

Local autonomy is a legitimate concern, and a basic part of the Constitution. Jurisdiction must always be determined, and often this is done on the basis of our moral assessment of the specific issues at stake. As Barron suggests, we should debate those issues, instead of trashing whole sets of laws every time they're used for an objectionable purpose.