States, right? Where should the power really sit?

It has been a question for hundreds of years. Who should be in charge of deciding basic rules for living for the citizenry?

The idea, as it was originally formed, was to avoid the circumstance where an overpowering federal government made unilateral decisions for residents across the wide expanse of the United States.

Of course it is not that simple today.

But one of the questions that keeps looming is whether states today should be the ones determining the course of their futures.

And it is a critical one.

Suppose for instance, that in Texas, the majority of the citizenry did not want to abide by the same rules that the citizens of say, New York, chose for their gun laws?

Who would get the final say? Would the federal government make the decision?

And what about immigration laws? Suppose Arizona has had to deal with extreme concerns regarding illegal immigration and wants to place some limits and to enact some measures to alleviate those problems?

Should Minnesota -- or Washington -- have a say in how that state decides to handle the issue?

There are many, many questions that keep popping up just like those -- and many citizens who are concerned about what the answers might be.

And with the continuing concerns about red states and blue states, there is a reason to watch the issue -- and its manifestations -- carefully.

The thing about freedom is that it does not have to be seized. It can be chipped away slowly, imperceptively.

Over the next four years, and beyond, it will be our job to make sure that does not occur. And it will take a wary and eagle eye to make sure it doesn't.

Published in Editorials on January 23, 2013 11:38 AM