ation. By eliminating state discretion on laws, we would rely on the input of one establishment to recognize what is beneficial for everyone, rather than allowing distinct regions to represent its inhabitants. Also without states being able to implement laws, problems may persist for extended periods of time before they are recognized, and even longer before a national law is passed to resolve it. Problems needing to be considered would have to grow to national importance before being addressed and maybe before being recognized. This could allow problems to grow to threatening levels before any action is taken to alleviate them. Laws would also be harder to enforce because they may not deal with all areas, therefore people my not choose to recognize or acknowledge them all, but instead to only adhere to those that directly apply to them. Changes in the law would grow to have more dramatic affects, as they impact the nation in its entirety and not just the individual states. Whereas local governments often control land use and development in a manner consistent with that region, a national government would have a harder time determining at what rate we should develop since it could not view small regions as divided states can. We could encounter over-development or over-production, which could deplete resources or ruin large plots of land. Overall, creating a uniform set of laws for our country would be a detrimental decision that could have far-reaching effects. The will of the people would not be upheld to its potential, only matters of bearing importance would be addressed and the government would become more of a scapegoat than a mediator. Besides being inefficient in recognizing individual needs, this system would also be ineffective in negotiating laws and applying limitations where they’re needed most. ...
