Federalism Fetish

Joe Carter on federalists in the Terri Schiavo case:

Finally, I have a hypothetical scenario and a question for those who would make a fetish of federalism. Imagine that a state court had violated your due process rights and had ordered that you undergo a procedure that would lead to your death. Congress wants to step in but you believe that doing so would be violating the principle of federalism (at least as you understand it). My question is this: Would you be willing to die unjustly in order to stand by your allegiance to federalism?

I'll do you one better, Joe. Let's say, hypothetically, that a court wrongfully convicted you of a crime and shipped you off to prison. Would you decline to escape, if offered the opportunity, for sake of due process of law?

My point is that no man can be impartial in his own case. Of course I would violate federalism to save my own life. Any man would violate any number of laws (so as long as he does not harm any person) in order to live and be free. That doesn't mean that the body politic can allow people to flaunt the law at will. Or do you think that a man should only obey the laws that please him?

The Constitution says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So the federal government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and no more. If the Constitution grants the federal government the power to intervene in the Terri Shiavo case, show me the article and section. Nevermind the moral pontificating. Yes, yes, human life. I heard you already. But this is also a legal issue, and if you are going to say that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment (which it does), then you must also reach the same conclusion here.

So lobby the Florida state legislature. And the state courts. And the governor. But once the state government has made its decision, then there is no higher earthly power to appeal to. And if you disagree, then go ahead and tear up your legal argument against Roe v. Wade right now.

UPDATE: Via Megan McArdle, Stuart Buck says that it's inaccurate to label nominal federalists who supported this federal intervention as hypocrites:

People often accuse their opponents of being hypocrites when, in fact, they may simply have been balancing competing principles. We all do this constantly. And the mere fact that someone reaches a different balance than you, or that they decline to treat one principle alone as being absolute, does not prove that they are being hypocritical.

Example: Do you believe in free speech? Yes? Well, then, do you believe that someone can post your social security number, checking account and credit card information, and your complete medical history on the Internet? No? Then you have obviously reached a balance between the competing principles of free speech and privacy. Could someone else reach a different balance? Sure. Would that person have a right to criticize you for being a hypocrite ("if you really believed in free speech, you'd stick to that principle even at the expense of some other interest")?