This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal)
I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"
That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of a loose confederation.
Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.
I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791.
As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.
No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree with everything you said.
The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it.
Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
