Final answer:
The question of whether state governments should have the authority to determine what is best for their citizens depends on the issue, with benefits and challenges associated with both federal and state authority. Federalism allows for political participation and policy innovation but may also cause inconsistencies and disparities. State authority varies, impacted by factors like ideology, public attitudes, and legal decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Whether state governments should have the authority to determine what is in the best interest of their citizens is a complex issue that varies based on several factors such as the nature of the policy issue, the advantages of federalism, and the principle of competitive federalism which allows states and the federal government to change roles over time.
Federalism offers benefits like encouraging political participation, policy innovation, and an acknowledgment of diverse viewpoints, yet poses challenges like a potential 'race to the bottom', cross-state disparities, and obstruction of efforts to address national issues. Federal standards, like minimum wage and air quality, resolve collective action problems and maintain programs with positive externalities. However, given the diversity among states, a decentralized approach is sometimes more optimal due to state and local governments' proximity to citizens and better understanding of local needs.
Competitive federalism illustrates that policies such as immigration and marriage equality can be redefined as the roles of state and federal government shift. Policy decisions are influenced by factors like political ideology, public attitudes, and Supreme Court interpretations of power distribution. The question of state authority typically has no universal answer, as it largely depends on the context and the issue at hand.