"I don't want to live in a 'balkanized' fifty state consortium, where every backwater fiefdom and well- oiled urban political machine calls the shots. Don't forget the 'states rights' arguments of the modern civil rights era. It took the Federal govt to put us on the road to sanity."

That's a reasonable position, Ed, and one very defensible in view of recent history. But I also feel that the opposite (as in Venezuela) has its own very obvious drawbacks. And on some (most) issues, the locals have a better handle on what they need than do the outsiders.

So I think it's really not about either States' Rights or Federal Govt. control but rather what is the proper balance between the two. Ideally, the Constitution would protect people from out-of-control fiefdoms, but with local and state courts made up of local people, that doesn't always work.

I think I'd rather see the federal government come to the rescue when needed rather than needlessly increase their power to prevent some theoretical abuse by corrupt locals. Then again, I grew up in the north where local governments had a bit better reputation for accountability.