hole may not. The possibility for national interests to be placed above local interests would increase greatly. Subjects of concern to specific areas may go unrecognized by the federal government, leaving existing problems to grow to proportions much more difficult to alleviate. This change would also create a sense of reduced accountability among the states because there would be fewer departments or officials and the federal government would become a scapegoat. Individual states would not be implementing law and therefore would accept less responsibility for local problems. Also, by implementing this system of national law the ability to develop broad solutions may be decreased because valuable local input or viewpoints may be ignored or inaudible to officials. By implementing a collection of national laws the state would lose some of its’ power, which would instead be granted to the federal government. It would be harder for the populations of the states to express their opinions and be heard. Laws that individual states view as necessary or beneficial may not be viewed in the same way by the country because of the varying interests and problems of different regions. It would also be harder to pass laws that specific groups, or populations in specific regions may benefit from without affecting the majority. Such laws as those directed at environmental problems may need to be specifically introduced in one area but would not have any benefit on another. Also, varying regions have differing interests and even cultures. The will of the people would be much harder to discern and even harder to represent. By implementing a national set of laws, the government would be stepping outside its boundaries of power and may pose the threat of becoming too powerful or influential. It would be nearly impossible to assimilate all the laws into one set applicable to the entire country without infringing upon the rights of a portion of the popul...
