December 27, 2010 10:21AM # The Constitutional Vision of The New York Times By [Roger Pilon](https://www.cato.org/people/roger-pilon) --- SHARE The editorialists at the *[The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/opinion/27mon2.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211&pagewanted=print)* are out of sorts this morning over a Tea Party backed constitutional amendment that would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of the legislatures approved. Despite the backing of incoming House majority leader Eric Cantor and legislative leaders in 12 states, the proposal has little chance of succeeding, the *Times* avers, “but it helps explain further the anger-fueled, myth-based politics of the populist new right.” Indeed, it expresses “with bold simplicity the view of the Tea Party and others that the federal government’s influence is far too broad.” Well? Isn’t that what the election last month was all about? But right there, for the *Times*, is the problem: “In past economic crises, populist fervor has been for expanding the power of the national government to address America’s pressing needs. Pleas for making good the nation’s commitment to equality and welfare have been as loud as those for liberty.” With the Tea Party, however, the tables have turned. What most troubles the *Times*, it seems, are Tea Party signs that say “We Want Less!” And nowhere is that better captured than when the *Times* speaks of “the mistaken vision of federalism on which \[this amendment\] rests. Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign. In this vision, the federal government is an intrusive parent.” If that vision is “mistaken,” so too, apparently, were the Founders, because [it was their vision as well](https://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/CT05.pdf). To be sure, the Constitution they crafted held “competing elements, some constraining the national government, others energizing it,” as the *Times* writes. And true also, the government they shaped was meant “to promote economic development that would lift the fortunes of the American people” — but mainly by securing the framework for liberty, the rule of law, not by pursuing prosperity through government programs. In particular, the Framers believed in personal, not government, responsibility; private, not collective, property; and a free, not a planned, economy. And they left most power with the states, where it would be exercised responsibly, or not — something to keep in mind as we watch our “failed states” [asking Washington (read, the other states) to bail them out](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122304421.html). ##### Related Tags [Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).