« Saturday Music Post - A Rose Is a Rose | Main | Interrogating Ethnography: Now Available in Chinese »
Saturday, November 09, 2024
Did Donald Trump Win the Election With “Abortion Federalism”? And Will He Really Keep His “Federalism Pledge”?
As I noted in an post written ten days before Trump won the presidency, Donald Trump invoked federalism to dodge the question of whether and how abortion ought to be regulated. In that post, I asked whether pro-choice voters would be reassured by Trump’s promise not to push for federal anti-abortion legislation but instead leave the question of a ban on abortion to the states. This promise took two forms: Trump tweeted a declaration that he “WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ABORTION BAN, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WOULD, IN FACT, VETO IT, BECAUSE IT IS UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE BASED ON THE WILL OF THEIR VOTERS.” Trump also dumped the GOP’s 2016 platform plank that called for national legislation to protect fetal life, replacing it with a new abortion plank declaring that “the states…are free to protect those rights [to life].”
At least one commentator thinks that Trump’s victory on Tuesday answered my post’s question about whether federalism on abortion reassured voters. Over at the Atlantic, Elaine Godfrey argued that Trump’s success in states where pro-choice referenda were enacted by the voters suggests that Trump’s endorsing “abortion federalism” might have “neutralized” the abortion issue with pro-choice independents and Republicans.
If Godfrey is correct, then Trump’s achievement in using federalism to defuse a divisive issue is an extraordinary achievement. As I argue in a draft paper (posted on SSRN here, comments welcomed!), it is difficult to strike a compromise of bitterly contested issues through delegating that issue to state governments. My paper traces the history of the Democratic Party’s efforts to strike such compromises rooted in federalism from 1832 to 1932. I argue that most such efforts at federal compromise eventually failed. Van Buren, Stephen Douglas, and Grover Cleveland all tried to hold the Democratic Party together by sending divisive issues (banking, slavery, liquor regulation) to the states. Van Buren’s and Cleveland’s federalism formulae each succeeded for roughly three decades, but the former collapsed with the Civil War, while the latter collapsed with William Jennings Bryan’s evangelical takeover of the Democratic Party in 1896. Douglas’ “popular sovereignty” theory never even got off the ground, dying at the Democrats’ 1860 Charleston Convention
Trump’s initial success in using federalism to dodge the abortion question invites a predictive and a normative question, both of which I will discuss after the jump. First, will Trump do better than Douglas by holding the GOP together through his “federalism pledge”? Second, if Trump and the GOP actually stick with their federalism pledge and thereby reduce national conflict over abortion, then should we be reassured by a successful modus vivendi? Or is federalism just a dodge that ignores the importance of fundamental rights by allowing states to take different stances on a matter on which basic constitutional morality requires uniformity?
1. Will Trump and the GOP stick with their pledge to leave regulation of abortion to the states?
Start with the predictive question: Will Trump keep his implicit pledge to refrain from making federal policy on abortion? Note that I emphasize that Trump’s pledge was implicit, because, as I explained in that earlier post, the explicit terms of Trump’s promise were equivocal. The tweet declared only that Trump would “veto” a “federal abortion ban.” That promise says nothing about whether Trump would allow such a bill to become law by waiting ten days without vetoing it. Likewise, the tweet said nothing about instructing agency chiefs not to impede states’ pro-choice policies by (for instance) withholding mifepristone. Nevertheless, Trump’s emphatic declaration that the question of abortion “should be up to the states to decide” strongly implies that he would not covertly try to impose a one-size-fits-all abortion policy through administrative action or presidential toleration of a federal anti-abortion bill.
Will Trump really sideline his anti-abortion supporters by forcing the federal government to adopt a strictly neutral stance on abortion, leaving its regulation up to the states?
Here are two reasons to answer that question affirmatively.
First, federal neutrality on the abortion in the name of federalism seems to have achieved electoral success. Harris did worse with female voters than Biden did in 2020 even though in 2020 Dobbs had not yet mobilized pro-choice voters to oppose the guy who eventually appointed the Dobbs majority. Given the prominence with which Harris gave the abortion issue, it is hard not to think that Trump’s offering the compromise of federalism weakened the force of pro-choice objections to the GOP.
Trump likes to win, and federalism on abortion seems to be a winner. Why invite trouble in the 2026 midterms by pushing anti-abortion policies using federal power?
Second, as I argue in my paper, federalism compromises are really hard to achieve. Members of a partisan coalition do not like to settle for the half-loaf of federalism: Having joined the winning team, they want to use federal power to achieve their goals. Trump, however, has already used his clout within the GOP to force anti-abortion constituencies to accept federalism rather than a national anti-abortion bill that was promised in 2016. They were not happy about the defeat, but they had to accept it from the guy who gave them Dobbs. Will they really stay home in 2026 to protest Trump’s refusal to push anti-abortion measures short of a statutory ban? If not, then why would Trump unravel his federalism achievement by providing “semi-bans” to a constituency that has nowhere else to go?
I admit that I am not super-confident that the Trump Administration will stick to strict federal neutrality on abortion. The GOP’s 2024 Platform, after all, adamantly stuck with the 2016 position that the 14th Amendment protected the right of unborn children to life and merely recommended that the states protect this national right. It is possible that anti-abortion groups made the latter concession because they were reassured that the Trump Administration would push measures short of a federal statutory ban. One anti-abortion leader noted, for instance, that “there are other avenues Trump could use to restrict abortion nationally, including through defunding Planned Parenthood and appointing anti-abortion officials to lead major federal departments.”
So we will have to wait and see. If Trump appoints Roger Severino to be HHS Secretary, then I will make a Bayesian update of my skepticism that Trump would sabotage his own federalism policy. Until then, I am guessing that it is 12:7 that Trump will avoid, for instance, repealing the FDA’s Mifepristone REMS Program. (Sure, Trump expressed openness to repealing the REMS Program back in August — but that was two months before his “federalism tweet”).
2. Should we welcome Trump’s embrace of federalism for abortion?
What about the normative question? Is federalism for abortion a good thing, or is it an outrageous cop-out from taking a stand on a fundamental right?
The answer, of course, is a further question: “Compared to what?” For both pro-choice and anti-abortion voters, federalism is not ideal: The former would prefer a national right to choose abortion, while the latter would prefer national protection for pre-natal human life. The problem, however, is that neither position seems to be a certain electoral winner, yet either is a distinct possibility. To the risk-averse voter, therefore, federalism has the appeal of an insurance policy the premium for which is the loss of the opportunity to nationalize one’s ideal regulatory system.
Now that the Republicans have taken over the commanding heights of the federal government, pro-choice voters should take some comfort in the partial protection for abortion provided by states that allow abortions. Trump’s anti-abortion supporters will, by contrast, predictably complain about paying the federalism premium. They have, however, been exiles from both state and national power for decades, when the pro-choice position was nationalized by Roe. They might, therefore, appreciate the benefits of federalism in anticipation of the likelihood that the Democratic Party could win in the future and send them into exile once more with a national pro-choice statute.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the Trump Administration’s refusal to nationalize an anti-abortion position today will be rewarded by Democratic self-restraint tomorrow. As my paper argues, however, the credibility of a commitment to federalism can be strengthened by sticking consistently with a simple, emotionally resonant doctrine that safeguards everyone’s interests through diverse subnational policy-making. That doctrine can become a focal point around which moderate voters rally to avoid the endless acrimony of national policies where there is no national consensus. Grover Cleveland’s support for decentralization of liquor policy was reciprocated by Republicans like James Blaine who wanted to avoid the headache of pushing through a national ban on liquor and thereby alienating non-Protestant immigrant communities. Anti-abortion Republicans might wan to team up with centrist Democrats to make federalism for abortion a salient focal point defining a cross-party compromise that could win at the polls.
3. Towards a Bipartisan Modus Vivendi?
Aside from providing insurance against total defeat on important issues, federalism has another virtue: It might foster a spirit of compromise that could lower the stakes and emotional divisiveness of national politics. As I have argued elsewhere, giving each side of a deep disagreement some share of policy-making power in different subnational jurisdictions is a way for each side to show equal concern and respect for the other side. The emotional benefits of such an attitude of concern and respect might be especially important when our politics are being torn apart by affective partisan polarization — that is, hostility towards members of the other party not because of the policies that they push but because of who they are. Federalism could reduce the identity threat that breeds such polarization, by reassuring each side that their views on issues defining their identity are not viewed with contempt by people with different views but instead given some fair share of territory in which those views can be enacted as law.
Of course, there are some issues over which it is worthwhile to fight a civil war. Undoubtedly, it would have placated Southerners’ sense of honor for anti-slavery activists in the 1850s to give them equal concern and respect by allowing slavery to spread to some “fair share” of western territories. Lincoln was nevertheless right to say that national law should not be neutral on the question of slavery but instead adopt the “freedom national, slavery local” position that he defended against Stephen Douglas.
Is the right to obtain an abortion, or the right to pre-natal life free from abortions, such an issue for you? If so, then my case for a modus vivendi will rightly sound hollow, and only my prior prudential argument about insuring yourself against total defeat will ring true. For the rest of you, remember that civil wars, hot or cold, are costly things that the equal concern and respect provided by federalist compromises can avoid.
Posted by Rick Hills on November 9, 2024 at 05:22 PM | Permalink
Comments
“Marty asks: “ Even if the FDA doesn't reverse the mifepristone decision, don't you think there's a good chance Trump's DOJ will reject our OLC opinion about the Comstock Act, thereby effectively criminalizing the interstate mail and transport (by common carrier) of mifepristone?”
I suppose that depends whether or not the intention of the Commerce Act was to legalize the transportation of medicine for the purpose of destroying innocent human life. Certainly it was not, because that would be unconstitutional, in both State and Federal Law.
We can know through both Faith and reason that “Our founding ideals of liberty and equality”, were true when they were written , but there were a multitude of persons that denied the spirit of our Constitution and thus the letter of the Law by denying the humanity and thus equal inherent Dignity of all beloved sons and daughters of human persons from the moment of conception to death.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UN alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness...”
And because these Rights, are grounded in the inherent equal Dignity of every beloved son or daughter of a human person, from the moment of creation, at our conception, and are Endowed to us from God, we can know through both Faith and reason, that these Rights cannot be relinquished without Due Process Of Law.
The relationship of the Government to The People, is The Government has a fiduciary duty to secure and protect our inherent Right to Life, the securing and protecting upon which our inherent Right to Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness depends, and because human life is Sacred, protect us from harm.
Slavery , involuntary servitude, abortion, and reordering persons according to sexual desire/inclination, all are means to objectify the human person and deny their inherent Dignity as human persons.
Man is not an end in himself/herself, nor is man a means to an end; man was created to live in Loving relationship, in communion with The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Who Willed us worthy of Redemption.
Posted by: ND | Nov 19, 2024 11:46:16 AM
“Let’s hope he listens to his inner Machiavellian opportunist and forces his anti-abortion constituents to accept a federalism compromise.”
Are you suggesting a “federalism compromise “ regarding who is or is not, in essence ,a human person, and thus, according to that erroneous logic, we would no longer hold these Truths to be self-evident , beginning with the self evident Truth that “All men are Created Equal…”?
Why that, my friend, is the difference that makes all the difference, for you cannot change The Spirit Of The Law, without changing The Letter Of The Law, and thus changing the very principles upon which The Constitution Of The United States Is Grounded.
First Principles Matter.
When you compromise Truth, you will always end with error.
Posted by: ND | Nov 13, 2024 2:04:57 PM
“Still, I don't see how your compromise-via-federalism concept is compatible with the notion of policy uniformity as a normative desideratum in this area of regulatory policy. Much rather, the two propositions seem antithetical.”
This is because one can know, through both Faith and reason, grounded in the truth about the relational essence of the human person that, as Justice Harry Blackmun “wrote in his majority opinion in response to Roe in 1973, If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
It is the duty of the State, in denying the inherent unalienable Right to Life of any son or daughter of human persons, to demonstrate how it could be possible for human persons to conceive a son or daughter who is not, in essence, a human person, and that not all sons and daughters residing in their mother’s womb are, in essence, human persons. Without this burden of proof, neither The State or The Federal Government, could possibly claim that abortion is a just act, protected by our Constitution.
Posted by: ND | Nov 12, 2024 12:34:27 PM
ABORTION POLICY & FEDERALISM & RAMIFICATIONS
News item: CDC Says U.S. Fertility Rate Drops to Another Historic Low (April 25, 2024)
Dear Professor Hills,
My familiarity with your work on abortion federalism indeed only extends to this blawg post and I wasn’t paying much attention to prawfblawg while I was in Europe this autumn.
If you can credibly demonstrate that public policy federalism can effectively diffuse the antagonism over abortion policy at the national level in the USA, that could indeed make for a pathbreaking contribution methinks. And it would not merely be of academic interest.
Your approach has certainly piqued my interest and I am probably not alone, especially if you strive to be open to a wider array of ideological priors that shape people’s views on abortion policy, rather than merely offering yet another gratuitous amicus effort on behalf of the abortion industry in the guise of an academic law review article.
In regard to ideological priors and diversity therein, I have since become aware that you also allowed the articulation of a Catholic viewpoint in the comment section on another post of yours. That’s commendable.
It cannot be disputed that many people’s views on abortion derive from their religion, although there are secular pro-lifers also. To deny the legitimacy and relevance of religion and faith-based values in a political analysis of the conundrum of abortion policy (and potentially viable compromises) in a political system in which power rests with the people would be folly.
Further, in a country that values religious liberty, the case for suppression of religiously grounded reasoning in the scholarly discourse would be problematic, to say the least. And yet, how many recent law review articles are there that are informed by pro-life or pronatalist values, compared to the flood of work promoting “reproductive rights” for women (never even discussing the ramifications for men, which is another aspect that the shapers of the temporary zeitgeist have succeeded I making a taboo. And that despite the ostensibly universal commitment to sex equality (a normative/legal concept, not a scientific one), which is now being obfuscated as gender equality along with the quasi-cultist denialism regarding biological sex differences and promotion and propagation of genders beyond two chromosomal and three grammatical one).
It seems to me that the idea of federalism as at least satisficing “solution” to the apparent inability of the USA to forge a uniform national compromise position on abortion policy deserves further attention.
I would again suggest that it may be worthwhile to draw analogies with Europe where there are also significant geographic differences in distributions of attitudes on abortion that are related to cleavages such as religious vs. secular and Protestant vs. Catholic. In regard to the latter, there is a single central authority (The Holy See) and a single doctrine, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t differences in doctrine-adherence in the majority-Catholic provinces farther afield (e.g. Ireland, Poland, Italy, Malta, and Austria).
And then there is Germany, which is about half Catholic and half Protestant, but increasingly secular like much else in Western Europe and has a constitutional policy position (protection of human life in the Basic Law and by the Constitutional Court), but nevertheless implemented a compromise in the form of partial non-enforcement (Straffreiheit, i.e. freedom from prosecution and penalties contingent upon satisfaction of specified conditions) as matter of practice, arguably trying to have it both ways.
The variation in abortion policy-regimes in Catholic countries in Europe may also provide an interesting opportunity to examine the equivalent of federalism within a supranational structure (the Catholic Church) that is centralized and not even particularly democratic (the Pope being elected only indirectly, not by popular vote of Catholics or electors). On the other hand, in several of the nominally Catholic countries in Europe, the electorate participated in national abortion policymaking directly though referenda, allowing for easier translation of popular views into policy (and arguably greater legitimacy of the resulting policy position) whereas in the voting for candidates the role of a single policy issue is difficult to tease out, even in a situation where one party makes abortion (sub nom “reproductive rights”) its principal campaign issue as just happened in the 2024 election season in the USA.
One predictable consequence of federalism in abortion availability is a certain amount of abortion tourism from restrictive jurisdictions to liberal ones (such as from Ireland to the UK before the policy change in the former, or from Poland to Germany after the tightening in Poland), but neither sides gets all they want in a compromise, and the cross-border leakage can also serve to defuse the amount of political conflict on the abortion front in the more restrictive jurisdictions. So, the more conservative electorates in some states may have a better chance to keep their more restrictive policy in place while the more liberal ones remain basically unaffected. A partial win for both sides.
And without restrictions on internal migration in the US (and the core of the EU/Schengen Area) people of course have a choice where to live and to choose their own preferred more conservative or more liberal political environment, and the associated policy regime. That will mean fewer abortions in more restrictive jurisdictions, ergo more births.
Which brings me to another (empirical) aspect of public choices on abortion policy that routinely gets ignored in the “rights” talk: The effect on the birth rate.
To be sustainable, every society has to reproduce itself generationally. That’s already not happening in many places because “humans with wombs” - to pay homage to the new lingo - don’t statistically speakin, ie in the aggregate, bear enough children to meet the replacement criterion.
How many law review articles and other scholarly work of the pro-abortion genre have you seen that do as little as acknowledge in passing the problem of unsustainably low birth rates in advanced societies?
Countries unlike China that never adopted and enforced one-child-only policy.
Much of the rich world that deems itself advanced and successful also has a demographic problem, and promotion of abortions makes it worse.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino | Nov 12, 2024 9:50:57 AM
Marty asks: “ Even if the FDA doesn't reverse the mifepristone decision, don't you think there's a good chance Trump's DOJ will reject our OLC opinion about the Comstock Act, thereby effectively criminalizing the interstate mail and transport (by common carrier) of mifepristone?”
Marty, I really don’t know. The gist of my paper is that it is really difficult for a political party to stick with a “federalism stance” that one of the party’s important constituencies opposes. I would guess that (1) Trump will be under a lot of pressure from AUL, etc, to construe the Comstock Act to apply but (2) Trump’s political instincts would tell him that’s a politically losing position. So which way will Trump go? Let’s hope he listens to his inner Machiavellian opportunist and forces his anti-abortion constituents to accept a federalism compromise.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Nov 11, 2024 4:32:43 PM
Marty asks: “ Even if the FDA doesn't reverse the mifepristone decision, don't you think there's a good chance Trump's DOJ will reject our OLC opinion about the Comstock Act, thereby effectively criminalizing the interstate mail and transport (by common carrier) of mifepristone?”
Marty, I really don’t know. The gist of my paper is that it is really difficult for a political party to stick with a “federalism stance” that one of the party’s important constituencies opposes. I would guess that (1) Trump will be under a lot of pressure from AUL, etc, to construe the Comstock Act to apply but (2) Trump’s political instincts would tell him that’s a politically losing position. So which way will Trump go? Let’s hope he listens to his inner Machiavellian opportunist and forces his anti-abortion constituents to accept a federalism compromise.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Nov 11, 2024 4:32:41 PM
Even if the FDA doesn't reverse the mifepristone decision, don't you think there's a good chance Trump's DOJ will reject our OLC opinion about the Comstock Act, thereby effectively criminalizing the interstate mail and transport (by common carrier) of mifepristone?
Posted by: Marty Lederman | Nov 11, 2024 3:35:42 PM
Wolfgang, I am mystified by your assertion that I "refer to abortion as a fundamental right (among others), disregarding the fact the that SCOTUS has overturned Roe v. Wade and progeny."
I think you are ignoring my question mark. I ask before the jump whether federalism for abortion is (a) a good thing (because the right to abortion should not be regraded as a "fundamental right") or (b) a bad thing (because it should be). I make zero assumptions about whether (a) or (b) is the right answer here. (If you read my post btw and know anything about what I write, then you will see that I, a bona fide federalism nut, favor (a))
(The exact quote right before the jump: "...if Trump and the GOP actually stick with their federalism pledge and thereby reduce national conflict over abortion, then should we be reassured by a successful modus vivendi? Or is federalism just a dodge that ignores the importance of fundamental rights by allowing states to take different stances on a matter on which basic constitutional morality requires uniformity?")
As for Roe's reversal, that is pretty much irrelevant to whether the right to obtain an abortion should be regarded as fundamental. SCOTUS could have erred in Dobbs just as it might have erred in Roe! Conservatives, after all, told us for years that the Constitution was not what SCOTUS says it is. (*See, e.g., Ed Meese's famous article in Tulane Law Review -- or Lincoln's speeches about Dred Scott or even Alito's Dobbs opinion, which rejects stare decisis when precedents are wrong.
If you agree with Meese, Lincoln, Dobbs, then you musty concede that Dobbs is just as provisional on what fundamental rights "really" are as Roe was. Live by a weak theory of stare decisis, die by it -- right? Some day someone might do to Dobbs what Dobbs did to Roe, so please don't cite SCOTUS's latest edition as conclusive evidence of what our rights are.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Nov 11, 2024 1:19:30 PM
In addition to the issues raised by federal or state laws related to abortion, those concerned about this issue should also be aware of law suits which have and are being brought under a variety of legal theories which can affect those who may seek abortions.
Included are Fetal Personhood Lawsuits, Fetal Estate Lawsuits, and Lawsuits by a Living Fetus
I tried to explain some of them here:
How Fetal Personhood and Fetal Estate Lawsuits Threaten Abortion Rights
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/how-fetal-personhood-and-fetal-estate-lawsuits-threaten-abortion-rights/
For a very recent update, see:
A Novel Lawsuit is Dropped; Assisting an Abortion is Safe, But Only For Now!
But a Creative Anti-Abortion Legal Tactic Is Still Available in Texas and Elsewhere
“A legal action seeking to charge friends who helped a pregnant woman obtain abortion pills with murder has been dropped, so those who help their pregnant friends are safe, at least for now, from such legal attacks.
But this kind of threat, as well as others likewise based upon novel but not necessarily frivolous legal theories, remain possibilities in Texas as well as in other states.
Indeed, one of the lawyers who filed this wrongful death action has filed several similar legal actions against those who aided women in obtain abortions, including one in a state where abortion remains legal.”
Posted by: LawProf John Banzhaf | Nov 10, 2024 3:40:10 PM
FETICIDE REGULATION IN FEDERAL SYSTEMS (EUROPE TOO)
I commend you for leaving the comments open and exposing yourself to criticism. Others don't and thereby avoid unpleasant disagreements. Trusting that this was4 not a mistake (as with Prof Wasserman once), I am pleased to oblige:
So ... I note that you refer to abortion as a fundamental right (among others), disregarding the fact the that SCOTUS has overturned Roe v. Wade and progeny.
Indeed, that comes across as your unexamined premise. In support, you invoke a "basic constitutional morality" that supposedly "requires uniformity." - Huh? Whence does this purported "constitutional morality" come from?
To your credit, you allow at the end of your piece that there may be disagreement on the desirability of abortion and the desired legal status of it, i.e., legality. You also draw an analogy to the long-ago-constitutionalized policy issue of alcohol regulation, where there was a subsequent reversal also, though secured by different means and after a shorter time span. In all, it's good food for thought!
But that acknowledgement of diversity in beliefs/ideological priors (whether secular or religious) comes at the end, and many readers probably won't go beyond the page break.
So my take is this: Up front, you signal your conformity with the prevailing orthodoxy in academia, namely the belief that abortion is a fundamental right notwithstanding the SCOTUS having ruled otherwise.
It would be interesting to have you affirm or deny it. Otherwise, your approach seem to validate the concern that some things are just too much taboo and that lip service to the ostensibly orthodox law professoriate consensus must first be paid as the price to be able to offer something even moderately "controversial" at all, such as the idea that abortion policy SHOULD NOT be uniform in a large diverse federally structured country (and that therefore the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs may not have been repugnant and actually furthers democracy: sub-national electorates deciding, rather than federal judges and ultimately the court of last resort).
On the merits, as a political scientist and comparativist, I appreciate your contribution to the abortion policy discourse by pointing to the ability of state-by-state accommodation of different distributions of aggregate-level preferences in different regions of the country as an alternative to some other type of nationwide compromise, such as in the nature of temporal limits on abortion (e.g. first trimester only) and a range of exceptions (conception by rape, fetal deformity, eugenic indication, etc.).
It might also be profitable to compare this type of policy federalism to the European Union (and Council of Europe/ECHR), where different member states (albeit countries, in that part of the world) likewise have different abortion regulation regimes. If I recall correctly, a couple of amicus briefs in the Dobbs case address the European situation. Perhaps a good topic for a law review article or student research & writing project.
Still, I don't see how your compromise-via-federalism concept is compatible with the notion of policy uniformity as a normative desideratum in this area of regulatory policy. Much rather, the two propositions seem antithetical.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino | Nov 10, 2024 1:59:46 PM