> Would people opposed to a federal court ordering Apple to unlock an iPhone be okay with a state court doing it? I'm going to guess "no."
If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. If the thing they are doing is sufficiently demented that enough people move, it will have a material effect on the state. This creates a dynamic that disincentivizes stupidity.
The barrier is substantially less for the federal government. It usually takes quite a bit of abuse before people start moving to another country. That makes the state vs federal argument relevant.
> As to your final point: while education or healthcare may arguably be outside the scope of the federal government's jurisdiction, national security and suppression of internal rebellion was one of the motivations for creating a strong federal government.
Okay ... is the FBI/DEA/TSA/etc. there to suppress internal rebellion? I think you can make a pretty good argument that that's true, but they certainly don't advertise themselves that way.
If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. If the thing they are doing is sufficiently demented that enough people move, it will have a material effect on the state. This creates a dynamic that disincentivizes stupidity.
The barrier is substantially less for the federal government. It usually takes quite a bit of abuse before people start moving to another country. That makes the state vs federal argument relevant.
> As to your final point: while education or healthcare may arguably be outside the scope of the federal government's jurisdiction, national security and suppression of internal rebellion was one of the motivations for creating a strong federal government.
Okay ... is the FBI/DEA/TSA/etc. there to suppress internal rebellion? I think you can make a pretty good argument that that's true, but they certainly don't advertise themselves that way.