Attorney General John Ascroft is forging a new role for himself and his Justice Department. In the new incarnation, states' rights are taking a back seat, "whether by force of circumstances, personality, ideology or a combination of all three."

"He has, for instance, recently overruled the recommendations of local federal prosecutors in 28 cases where they decided not to seek the death penalty. He has similarly used federal prosecutions to override state laws concerning social issues like medicinal marijuana and doctor-assisted suicide."

What drives him?

The terrorist attacks have energized Ashcroft in a remarkable way, resonating with his sincere belief that there is evil in the world," said Nancy Baker, an associate professor of government at New Mexico State University and the author of "Conflicting Loyalties," a history of the attorney general's office. "As the son and grandson of Assembly of God preachers, he is spiritually as well as politically inclined to do battle with evil."

Ashcroft likens himself to, of all people, Bobby Kennedy. Others disagree.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, who served under Kennedy and succeeded him as attorney general, said, "He uses it to justify some things that Bobby Kennedy never would have tried to justify," including expanded surveillance powers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and more cooperation between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. "The problem today is that it is very hard to know the limits of what they're trying to collect," Mr. Katzenbach added.

If anyone has any doubts about how much his personal morality shapes his policy decisions, consider this:

But Mr. Ashcroft's language also reveals how his personal convictions help inform his thinking about the rule of law. "Order and liberty go together, like love and marriage," he told a group of judges in August. "You can't have one without the other."

We strongly oppose the mass federalization crime laws. As aptly stated by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,

Increasingly, crime bills grant federal prosecutors greater and greater authority by creating more federal crimes out of historically state and local crimes. For example, domestic violence, carjacking and failure to pay child support, the subjects of recent federal measures, are traditionally the prerogative of state and local governments; federal jurisdiction is unwarranted, unwise and contrary to the Constitution. Regarding these and other federalized crimes, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist observed that "one senses from the context in which they were enacted that the question of whether the states were doing an adequate job in this particular area was never seriously asked." Before enacting federal criminal legislation, Congress should consider whether a federal interest is implicated and whether the state or local remedy is shown to be inadequate to address that interest. The impact on federal law enforcement and court resources should also be assessed.