milk us like the cattle we are, but theyrncould not pretend that the cattle had actuallyrnsold themselves to tlie political herdsman.rnThat is how revolutions begin.rnYes, as a good American and thereforerna coward, I hope that Mr. Bush can takernthis election from Mr. Gore by anyrnmeans fair or foul, but as a republicanrnand a patriot, I would rather spend fourrnyears seething in hatred of an illegitimaterngovernment that forced me to repeat, everyrnmorning, that Tipper really is arncharming lady of style and distinctionrnthan to lend my little particle of legitimacyrn—roughly one 200-millionth —to arnregime that will always and only give us arnchoice between two undoubted evils.rn—Thomas FlemingrnSTATES’ RIGHTS suffered anotherrnblow last October, when President Clintonrnsigned into law a $58-billion transportationrnbill. Tucked away amidst thernelechon-year pork-barrel spending was arnprovision which, in effect, sets a nationwiderndrunk-driving standard. Under sectionrn351 of the new law, state receipt ofrnfederal highway funds is made contingentrnupon adoption of a blood-alcoholrncontent (BAG) intoxication standard ofrn.08 percent. States that refuse to tailorrntheir laws to Washington’s liking will loserna portion of their federal highway funds—rntwo percent in 2004, four percent inrn2005, six percent in 2006, and eight percentrnin 2007.rnNineteen states and the District of Columbiarnalready have .08 laws, and inrnMassachusetts, .08 is considered evidencernbut not proof of impairment. Thernother 31 states use .10 to define drunkenrndriving. Mothers Against Drunk Driversrnand other supporters of the new law estimaternthat 500 lives will be saved eachrnyear. Pointing out that the average BAGrnlevel for drunks involved in fatal crashesrnis .17, the restaurant and alcohol industriesrncounter that a .08 level will penalizernsocial drinkers and hurt small business.rnLost in the bickering is the propriety ofrnpenalizing a sovereign state for crafting itsrnown BAG standard. Drunk driving is arnlocal criminal matter; therefore, BAGrnlevels fall within a state’s broad policernpowers—its reserved powers.rnUnfortunately, this lack of respect forrnstate sovereignty is hardly surprising. PrevailingrnSupreme Court precedent permitsrnCongress to attach myriad strings tornfederal spending. In South Dakota v.rnDole (1987), the Court upheld a congressionalrnmandate directing the secretary ofrntransportation to withhold highway fundsrnfrom states with drinking ages under 21.rnRelying on cases from the New Deal, thernCourt reaffirmed that “the power of Congressrnto authorize expenditure of publicrnmoneys for public purposes is not limitedrnby the direct grants of legislative powerrnfound in the Constitution.” Congressionalrnexercise of the spending power, continuedrnthe Court, is valid so long as it is forrnthe general welfare, the conditions imposedrnare unambiguous, the conditionsrnrelate to national concerns, and the conditionalrngrant does not run afoul of otherrnconstitutional provisions. In other words,rnthere are no real limits on congressionalrnspending. Vague concepts such as “generalrnwelfare” and “national concerns” arernhardly resbictive.rnOf course, the Constitution, despiternthe Supreme Court’s exegesis, does imposernlimits on congressional spending.rnArticle Eight, Section One permits Congressrnto tax and “to pay the Debts andrnprovide for the common Defence andrngeneral Welfare of the United States.”rnFollowing this declaration is an enumerationrnof specific powers which would bernrendered superfluous if “general welfare”rnwas the standard. In his Virginia Resolutions,rnJames Madison stated that the general-rnwelfare language was “copied fromrnthe very limited grant of powers in thernformer articles of confederation” to ensurernagainst misconstruction. “[I]t willrnscarcely be said,” Madison continued inrnhis Report of 1799, that this language wasrn”ever understood to be either a generalrngrant of power” or to permit the ConfederationrnCongress to escape the Articles’rnenumeration of powers. Hence, the textrnand history of the Constitution belie anyrnassertion of a spending power not connectedrnto the enumerated powers.rnFor all the carping from the academyrnabout a conservative Supreme Court,rnthere clearly has been no conservation ofrnthe Constitution’s limits on congressionalrnspending. Congress spends as freely asrnthe British parliament—a body claimingrnultimate sovereignty and enjoying no realrnlimits on its power. The nationwide .08rnstandard is but the latest example of thernfransformation of our system. While thernUnited States has continued the form of arnrepublic with divided legislative sovereignty,rnthe reality is much difiFerent. If Congressrncan tamper with states’ DUI laws, then wernmay safely declare that no local matter remainsrnoutside of Washington’s reach.rn-William B.WatkinsrnLEFT BEHIND-, THE MOVIE isrncoming soon to a theater near you —rnmaybe. Supporters of the multimilliondollarrnevangelical end-times film are attemptingrnto sponsor it in theaters acrossrnthe nation. Released first on video in orderrnto drum up support, the film stars KirkrnCameron, former teen heartthrob andrnstar of ABC’s Growing Pains. Just after thernclosing credits, Cameron pleads with fansrnof the novel-turned-movie to “pass out flyers,rncall your Christian bookstore, and volunteerrnto sponsor a screen in your localrntheater.” We can judge the effectivenessrnof the grassroots movement on Februaryrn2, the projected opening night.rnLeft Behind is the first in an eight-bookrnseries, the most recent of which. ThernMark, was released on November 14,rn2000—an instant best-seller. The seriesrnis the latest example of the rapture genrernthat began with the publication of HalrnLindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth, arnnovel that grossed more in sales than anyrnother book during the I970’s.rnLindsey’s novel gave rise to the (nowrncult-classic) series of evangelical films byrnMark IV Productions: A Thief in thernNight, A Distant Thunder, and Image ofrnthe Beast. Churches across the nationrnshowed the films at youth retreats andrn”watch-night services” — New Year’s Evernservices at which congregations waitedrnfor a midnight rapture. Despite their datedrnproduction qualities—tortured camerarnangles, “waa”-laden guitar soundrneffects—the films were effective evangelismrntools; altars were flooded with teensrnand adults hoping to escape the Antichrist’srnguillotine by accepting Jesus asrntheir personal Savior before it was toornlate. Christian-rock pioneer Larry Normanrncrooned the Framptonesque themernsong to Thief and the entire rapturernmovement: “There’s no time to changernyour mind / The Son has come andrnyou’ve been left behind /1 wish we’d allrnbeen ready.”rnDuring the decade after the last MarkrnIV film. Jack Van Impe kept the rapturernpopular among evangelicals. Aroundrnthat time, Timothy LaHaye was on anrnairplane when “I noticed a pilot flirtingrnwitii a stewardess. He had a wedding ringrnand she didn’t. I thought to myself, whatrnif that man is having an affair and his wifernis a Christian? What if the rapture happensrnand he is left behind?” That was thern”seed” for the series, according to LaHaye,rnwho had previously distinguished himselfrnby coauthoring (with his wife, BeverlyrnLaHaye, president of Concernedrn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn