> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them.
>>I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws).
There are and those get to be negotiated and worked out. The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states. That is entirely the point. Firearm laws are a great example because just because I might wish your state did things differently...it's not my state and therefore I don't really get a vote.
> People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views.
>>"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws.
"Just move" becomes a much more difficult proposition when your beef is with the entire country. I have neighbors who moved their kids out of Colorado as soon as marijuana was legalized. That was a choice they were able to make with a policy they disagreed with.
>>It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move.
The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. Civil rights / human rights issues are a different ballgame and those absolutely are things that need to be resolved at the federal level. There's a whole host of other policies that don't though.
> States have to have balanced budgets
>>I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon.
They are crises because they have to be balanced. That is the point. If your state's budget doesn't work there are furloughs, layoffs and immediate budget cuts to balance it. At the Federal level that doesn't happen unless Congress fails to pass ANY budget regardless of whether it's balanced.
> There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though
>>Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues.
Again, above answer applies. Those ARE the issues that are Federal issues. There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.