Regardless of where one stands regarding a specific issue, serious consideration should be given to the appropriate level of input or control exerted by the federal government. If we indeed have a Constitution that is worth anything more than a reminder of a more free time, then there are indeed issues that are state or local issues. If the federal government is to have its claws in everything, why bother with statehood? Do we really need to have state laws, when federal laws could provide a uniform set of rules and regulations across country?
If we are to insist on maintaining the facade of statehood and if there is indeed a manifestation of the phantom separation of church and state that is placed in the U.S. Constitution by liberal hacks, then shouldn't the phantom separation be incorporated at the state level? Self-promoting lib atheist activist Rob Sherman seems to think so. Apparently Mr. Sherman believes that the federal courts should extinguish any embers of state sovereignty that might still smolder in Illinois.