Monday, April 22, 2002
Instapundit excerpts his own article, saying that by seeking a national solution (i.e., a ban) on cloning, Bush is being a "fair-weather Federalist." While Reynolds' general point is valid -- not everything is a Federal issue -- it seems to me that cloning is of sufficient depth and import that a Federal solution is called for. Would Reynolds object to the national banning of slavery? Or would he leave that up to the states? He might reply: "Well, at least they made an amendment to the Consitution." Fair enough. So if we who oppose cloning seek such an amendment, will the "fair-weather Federalist" argument end? I myself don't think that an amendment is called for: To a large extent, the original Consitution tolerated slavery and would therefore have required amendment prior to any national banning of slavery; unless one is going to start talking "penumbras," I don't think the current Constitution has much to say about cloning...
# posted by Peter @ 11:42 AM 
