I agree with PaintPooper, but at the same time realize that there would be some injustices in some of the more rural points in the States. Some people may be denied service, some people's lives may be made more difficult because of this. I'm not so ignorant to say that it wouldn't occur at any point. However, while the Federal government would back away from these issues to let them be dealt with at a local level, the local governments would suddenly be stepping up to the plate to mitigate the damages.
Another reason to support the shift of responsibility is in accordance with the Constitution -- the Law to which we hold our government accountable. If we hold our government to these rules, and force them to respect our rights and individual liberties, we will be in a better position to draw our protection from it when needed, for instance, issues of Church and State come into play.
Hypothetically, there are other perks to delegating the powers to the states, including allowing the states to determine different methods for resolving problems. Some methods will work better than others, which other states can then adopt. Handling things locally like this is a great way to experiment and evolve our government's laws and enforcement options.
Another reason to support the shift of responsibility is in accordance with the Constitution -- the Law to which we hold our government accountable. If we hold our government to these rules, and force them to respect our rights and individual liberties, we will be in a better position to draw our protection from it when needed, for instance, issues of Church and State come into play.
Hypothetically, there are other perks to delegating the powers to the states, including allowing the states to determine different methods for resolving problems. Some methods will work better than others, which other states can then adopt. Handling things locally like this is a great way to experiment and evolve our government's laws and enforcement options.
