As he dashes out the door with swim trunks sticking out of his suitcase lid, Professor Schaff fires off a reply to me concerning a possible veto of Congressional hate crimes legislation. In case this should reach him before he arrives at Fantasy Island, where Mr. Roarke will no doubt arrange for him to single-handedly nip the Protestant Reformation in the bud, I post my counter-reply.
Professor Schaff and I agree that hate crimes legislation is a matter of state, not national law; and we agree that the veto exists above all to allow the President to prevent constitutional abuses by Congress. We differ on this: Professor Schaff seems to think that the Congressional legislation is an unconstitutional usurpation of state prerogative; I think it is merely bad policy and may reduce the efficiency of the federal system in some modest way. If Schaff is right, the President is obligated to use his veto. If I am right, it is a judgment call.
For most purposes, the Constitution does not neatly sort out the respective jurisdictions of the state and Federal governments. What belongs to each is largely a matter of practice and precedent, which are themselves the results of a long process of sedimentation. Judgment calls provide the sediment. An act of Congress that interferes with the traditional prerogatives of the states will stir things up without doing any real good. A veto, on the other hand, would be perceived not in these terms, but in terms of the President's opposition to the idea of hate crimes legislation; and that, together with his opposition to gay marriage, would be seen as evidence of an anti-homosexual agenda. I think that this would weaken his stand on constitutional principles. Hence I would argue against the veto.
Have a nice vacation, Perfesser.
Recent Comments