Final answer:
Local sovereignty could allow communities to make decisions suiting their needs, enhancing autonomy, but it risks causing fragmentation and a lack of uniform national policy. The U.S, being a federalist country, maintains a balance between state sovereignty and a strong central government to avoid anarchy and ensure stability.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand is whether a community should be sovereign. Sovereignty refers to the ability and authority of a state to govern itself without interference from external entities. The United States is a sovereign country, meaning it has complete authority within its borders and can engage independently with other nations. However, cities and towns within the U.S. do not possess sovereignty; they derive their powers from the state government, in accordance with Dillon's Rule, which posits that local governments exist at the state's discretion.
When addressing whether local communities should be sovereign, the concept of federalism comes into play. The U.S. is a federalist country, meaning power is distributed between the central government and the states, with the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court playing central roles in that distribution. Local sovereignty could potentially foster autonomy, allowing communities to make decisions best suited to their specific needs (Option A), but it might also result in fragmentation, reducing uniformity and stability (Option B).
In a federal system like that of the U.S., balance of power is key to maintaining stability while allowing for local discretion in certain policy areas. This system helps prevent the anarchy that might arise in an international system with no overarching authority. Therefore, the question of whether communities should be sovereign is complex on the value placed on local autonomy versus the benefits of a unified national policy.