The ACS Weblog is maintained by ACS members and is not otherwise affiliated with or sponsored by the ACS National Office.

Thanks to the religious-themed lawyer blog Logos for the pointer to a great Chicago Tribune by Steve Chapman entitled The Late, Great States - Where Have All the Federalists Gone?, article reprinted at Slate. Sean Fosmire summarizes:

Chapman suggests that the reason that current conservatives seem to have forgotten about federalism is that Republicans are in power now. When the Democrats held the Presidency and a majority position in Congress, conservatives argued in favor of decentralized authority in order to reduce the effective power of the national government and keep power in the hands of the states, where they could exercise far more influence. Now that they hold the reins of power, they are not so eager to make the same arguments.

"Once Republicans saw all the great things they could do with centralized power in Washington, they forgot why they ever found it worrisome in the first place."

...

Consistent federalism would support both opposition to a Federal constitutional amendment on gay marriage and opposition to Roe v. Wade. Most liberals (for the former, against the latter) and most conservatives (vice versa) are fair-weather federalists.

When Cheney talks about how proud he is of Halliburton, I would have cut to somebody describing the Halliburton accounting fraud--the failure to disclose material changes in accounting practices that moved a big chunk of profits forward in time to the current year--that Cheney presided over, and linked that to Bush's Harken Energy trading and to Halliburton's billing practices in Iraq. I would have had a section on Cheney's claims that persons nobody can find told him of a direct threat to Air Force One on the morning of September 11.

When Bush talked about how the have-mores were his 'base', I would have set out some numbers about the effects of his... tax shift... on the people then in the room. When Moore showed the picture of the Supreme Court, I would have read out the portion of the decision--'Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities'--in which the Justices reveal how ashamed they are of the possibility that Bush v. Gore might ever be used as a precedent. I would have juxtaposed the investigation of PeaceFresno and of something like the 'extraordinary rendition' of Maher Arar to the kid gloves used to handle the bin Laden relatives after 911: why not keep them until September 16, and send the FBI and CIA through to ask them all to 'tell us everything you can about your uncle'?

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer. ... The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

There's no 'challenging the bona fides of a political opponent' exception to the law in question. While Plame's alleged role may have some political traction, it's legally irrelevant. Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel they have a good reason or not.