Why is a broke U.S. Senate offering grants for states to pass red-flag laws?

I’ve long lamented the demise of federalism, a founding principle of our system of government.

According to the precepts of federalism, the national government should limit itself to matters enumerated in the Constitution. All other matters should be handled by state and local governments.

A subsidiary precept is that the federal government shouldn’t take on matters that can be addressed at the state and local level.

This division of governmental responsibilities has gone the way of the quill and inkwell.

Republicans occasionally make a pretense of invoking federalism principles, when it offers a convenient talking point against some Democratic initiative they oppose. But they have no qualms about harnessing the power of the federal government contrary to the principles of federalism to advance an initiative they favor.

Democrats make no pretense of regarding anything as not the business of the national government.

Traffic safety isn't a federal budget item

This vitiation of federalism’s principles can occur on matters small.

Recently, Arizona U.S. Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly put out a press release bragging about a $7 million federal grant Phoenix received to improve traffic safety at two intersections with railway crossings, 43rd Avenue and Camelback Road, and 19th Avenue and McDowell Road.

The money will be used to put in gate arms and widen streets and crosswalks. The city of Phoenix will pony up 30% of the cost.

Now, traffic safety is a quintessential local matter. Local governments have ample reason to make it a priority. The city of Phoenix is a $5.6 billion enterprise. If these two intersections are too dangerous, it shouldn’t take a federal grant for the city to take steps to make them safer.

The vitiation can occur on matters big as well.

Some parts of Senate gun deal make sense

The recent spate of mass shootings has resulted in renewed calls for Congress to do something about them.

Under the principles of federalism, there would be an argument for federal action if some form of gun control was the proposed remedy, such as banning certain weapons or limiting the number of bullets in a magazine.

The argument would be that a national law was required to prevent leakage. If one state or city adopted such a ban but others didn’t, the forbidden item could be purchased where legal and transported to where illegal.

However, such gun control measures couldn’t pass the Senate. That would probably be true even without the filibuster rule. But with the filibuster, requiring the support of at least 10 GOP senators to overcome, floor failure would be a certainty.

In an effort to define what might pass, a group of 20 senators issued a joint statement regarding federal action they could support. Significantly, 10 of them are Republicans, enough to overcome a filibuster.

According to Politico, Sinema was a key negotiator of the statement, another example of her walking the walk on bipartisan governance. Kelly also signed on.

There are some items in the proposal that are compatible with the principles of federalism.

The national government maintains a do-not-sell registry, a list of people legally ineligible to purchase a firearm. This is an appropriate role for the national government based upon the same leakage problem that would arise from state maintained lists.

The bipartisan gun violence proposal makes some changes to this national registry, such as for domestic violence perpetrators and an extended review period for purchasers under the age of 21.

But financial incentives to states overreach

The rest, however, consists of things that violate the principles of federalism.

I have long supported so-called red flag laws, a civil process whereby someone exhibiting potential violent behavior could temporarily be put on the do-not-sell registry or have firearms confiscated. While the registry is federal, the civil procedure, for practical reasons, would need to take place in state or municipal courts.

The bipartisan proposal includes federal grants as an inducement for states to enact red flag laws. Cost, however, isn’t a barrier to the enactment of such laws. They wouldn’t put much of a burden on state and local courts.

Moreover, the finances of the states are markedly healthier than those of the federal government, which is drowning in debt. There’s utterly no reason for the adoption and funding of these laws to be a federal, as opposed to a state or local, responsibility.

Similarly for the other central provisions. There would be increased federal funding for a variety of mental health programs. And increased federal funding for school safety programs.

The national government doesn’t care more than state governments about the mental health of their citizens. Nor about the safety of their schoolchildren. There is nothing about improving mental health or protecting schoolchildren that requires a national rather than a state and local response.

And, once again, state finances are generally healthy while the federal government is broke.

The bipartisan proposal may represent a way for national politicians to say that they have done something about gun violence and mass shootings. But it would further erode the principles of federalism that are supposed to guide the governance of the country.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Senate gun deal overreaches on red-flag laws, school safety