|
|
|
|
|
by fileeditview
138 days ago
|
|
So why not just merge into one and be 16 times as effective? Sorry for the sarcasm but your calculation is just a wild assumption. How does the US do it? They have a fair amount of states too with their own laws, don't they? Sure, federalism produces some overhead and inefficiencies. But it also has many benefits. Especially to avoid too much power in one hand but also others. E.g. you can have different school systems in different states and see what works better and adapt the other systems (if you actually do that is another question). People are also different in different states. This also applies to Europe and its member states. Just merging all into one is just a recipe to fail epically. |
|
In practice, it's more nuanced and subject to continual back-and-forth arguing. E.g. California and Texas trying to decide their own standards, by virtue of their economic size, then hashing it out with the federal government in court.
I'm not sure what the EU regulatory cornerstone equivalent of the Commerce Clause would be.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause