Say the GOP, federalism when convenient

You'll see examples of this alot (think, federal tort claims regulation)-- and Dionne's opinion article, Defending States' Rights -- Except on Wall Street, has some good language on the intellectual 180s some folks will turn.

States' rights are a matter of high principle -- except when they become inconvenient to some powerful interest group. Then they can be ignored or swept aside.

That lesson, taught over and over, will be put to the test again, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. That's when the House Financial Services Committee may take up a proposal that would sharply restrict the power of state regulators to oversee the securities industry. The measure, introduced by Rep. Richard Baker, a Louisiana Republican, would prevent state regulators from working independently of the federal Securities and Exchange Commission in seeking structural changes in the way brokerage houses and investment banks work.
...
States may have a lot of rights, but if they embarrass a few Wall Street firms, the power of big government in Washington will be brought in to stop them. So it seems to Spitzer, a Democrat. "The federalism of the Republican Party seems to apply when the issue is the rights of the poor, and they want to leave that to the states," Spitzer said in an interview. "But when it comes to using power to help their corporate patrons, they bring it back to Washington."

And to be fair, there are principled Republicans:

Strong words? Some Republicans are also worried about the inconsistencies on display in this battle. "As Republicans, we do believe in states' rights, state prerogatives and state control," said Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who, like Baker, is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Before Congress cuts back on state authority, King continued, "we need very compelling evidence, and right now the evidence goes the other way. It's state officials who have been cracking down on corporate corruption."

I point out this story because I hear the tenth amendment states-rights argument all the time. Honestly, I'm a local power guy myself- local government law is certainly the closest we get to direct democracy; and more importantly, acocuntability. But it is difficult, in a three tiered power system (I refer to local, state, and federal) to hold absolutes on wherein the most power shall lie. In my mind, its a case by case discussion. But what really irks me is to hear someone argue for state-power (to further accountability and connection to voters) but then balk at local government power. If one really wants the decision maker close to the voters, put that power in the city hall.