Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science universal law universal law Should we make all laws uniform across the country and eliminate state-to-state differences in policies? What can we gain from such a change and what would we lose? As our current system of laws exists, a single idea for a law can be applied differently to each individual state. Interpretations, enforcement, and the consequences of the law can vary within the United States as each separate state is allowed to create their independent laws as long as they remain constitutional and meet the federal minimum consequences. They must follow federal law but are allowed to implement new ones as they see necessary. With laws differing across the country, one might propose establishing a selection of uniform rules to erase variations and standardize our limitations. The question then becomes whether or not this would be beneficial or detrimental to our society. I believe that this decision would have more negative connotations than positive ones. By creating a set collection of uniform laws, we can hope to establish standards and attempt to eliminate controversial variations between laws. A uniform set of laws would limit any confusion on state interpretations and create a stronger sense of unity between the states because it would establish national law. People would feel more connected because they live under laws recognized by everyone and not just by the state they inhabit. Equality would be established because everyone lives under the same laws no matter where they reside. Creating a uniform set of laws for the country would also increase responsiveness to problem solving. Since concerns or problems would not be addressed on a state level there would be less time spent in debate or review of problems, thereby decreasing response time. Less negotiation and debate would leave more time for research and interpretation. However, a number of problems could also arise from this decision. Although the government may grow in power, our nation as a whole 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 population. 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. Bibliography: Word Count: 932
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.