Michael Blake
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781479868858
- eISBN:
- 9781479821303
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- NYU Press
- DOI:
- 10.18574/nyu/9781479868858.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter responds to an article by Sotirios A. Barber, who argued that defending dual federalism is a self-defeating act because it denies the existence of both a controlling national good, such ...
More
This chapter responds to an article by Sotirios A. Barber, who argued that defending dual federalism is a self-defeating act because it denies the existence of both a controlling national good, such as national prosperity or democracy, and an authoritative national judge. Barber anchors his case upon a particular view of what the function of a national forum must be and what it means to engage with that forum. While the chapter acknowledges that dual federalism is unattractive, it contends that its defects are at the level of substantive morality; those who defend it do not contradict themselves—they simply offer a less than attractive vision of the national community. The chapter claims that the debate over dual federalism cannot be decided by considerations of the logic of the forum, and that the failure of dual federalism cannot be situated within its performative logic.Less
This chapter responds to an article by Sotirios A. Barber, who argued that defending dual federalism is a self-defeating act because it denies the existence of both a controlling national good, such as national prosperity or democracy, and an authoritative national judge. Barber anchors his case upon a particular view of what the function of a national forum must be and what it means to engage with that forum. While the chapter acknowledges that dual federalism is unattractive, it contends that its defects are at the level of substantive morality; those who defend it do not contradict themselves—they simply offer a less than attractive vision of the national community. The chapter claims that the debate over dual federalism cannot be decided by considerations of the logic of the forum, and that the failure of dual federalism cannot be situated within its performative logic.
Sotirios A. Barber
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781479868858
- eISBN:
- 9781479821303
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- NYU Press
- DOI:
- 10.18574/nyu/9781479868858.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter examines whether there is a case for dual federalism. It first considers the main ideas of Marshallian federalism and its defense by John Marshall in his opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland ...
More
This chapter examines whether there is a case for dual federalism. It first considers the main ideas of Marshallian federalism and its defense by John Marshall in his opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It then explains how the so-called logic of the forum affects traditional claims for dual federalism and goes on to discuss the issue of state sovereignty and the principle of subsidiarity as well as the dual federalist claim that states' rights exemptions from national power enhance liberty. It contends that defending dual federalism is a self-defeating act because it denies the existence of both a controlling national good, such as national prosperity or democracy, and an authoritative national judge. It argues that a defense of dual federalism would have to occur in a national forum, where it is impossible to defend it in the first place.Less
This chapter examines whether there is a case for dual federalism. It first considers the main ideas of Marshallian federalism and its defense by John Marshall in his opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It then explains how the so-called logic of the forum affects traditional claims for dual federalism and goes on to discuss the issue of state sovereignty and the principle of subsidiarity as well as the dual federalist claim that states' rights exemptions from national power enhance liberty. It contends that defending dual federalism is a self-defeating act because it denies the existence of both a controlling national good, such as national prosperity or democracy, and an authoritative national judge. It argues that a defense of dual federalism would have to occur in a national forum, where it is impossible to defend it in the first place.
