House passes bill to make animal cruelty a federal felony...

[Standing Wolf]

It's a good question. And although there is no perfect answer, we do have a fairly good idea, based on evolutionary biology generally and anthropology specifically, of what constitutes a genuinely "local" human population or grouping. Probably the best estimate is Dunbar's number, which he based on studies of primate brain morphology, and which was later corroborated by studies into human social dynamics. It's about 150 people. Once a group of humans exceeds that number, the coherence of the group's identity begins to break down. And this makes a lot of sense, since 150 people is probably roughly the same size as a "band" of hunter-gatherers, which was the predominate form of human social organization for about 99% of our existence as a species. I'm not saying that 150 people has to be the working definition of local in the context of the US political system, only that the number is a good starting point for discussions about what ought to be considered local.



Quite clear.

And here is my attempt at an answer: The scale of political organization should be directly proportional to the underlying social consensus. Issues where a large scale social consensus exist are generally appropriate to address using large scale political organization. For example, probably eighty to ninety percent (if not more) of "Americans" agree that an attack on one community or State is an attack on all. But when it comes to issues like abortion or drugs or transgender bathroom rights, there is nothing even approaching a broad social consensus, which is a clear sign, to me at least, that the issues should be left to State and local governments.

I consider myself to be a citizen of the state of Arizona, which entitles me to various privileges and legal considerations, but I am also a citizen of the United States. If some governmental entity in my state were to either attempt to deprive me, specifically, of a right that I felt I had as an American citizen, or to deprive all Arizonans of such a right, whether by statute, or by executive or judicial action, I should not have to leave my home and move to another jurisdiction in order to exercise that right.

In other words, it is sometimes necessary for the people to seek justice from outside their home state, and that's where intervention by federal authorities may be justified...just as might be necessary if my city or county sought to deprive me of some right I ought to be able to exercise as a citizen of the state of Arizona.

[Common Sense]

So you call for the US to amend Art 1, sec. 8, US Const to give this power to the federal government?

Where have I said that?