Spearheading change that is supported by a significant or majority of the population

On the flip side however — when considering blocking popular movements despite majority public opinion — there are clearly different considerations at play depending on what type of activity is being discussed: whereas allowing individuals access to something like medical cannabis might only affect those within a certain jurisdiction rather than having broader implications across society, prohibiting something like same sex marriage can bring about far more far reaching consequences due both social stigma associated with being denied such recognition as well perceived legal inequalities between heterosexuals & homosexuals alike . Thus when making decisions on whether or not these kinds of issues deserve Federal attention & intervention , careful consideration must always been given as per what exactly will happen if/when said legislation passes/fails at either a state/local level - taking into account potential public backlash or furtherance thereof depending upon either outcome . Overall then , while it may sometimes make sense for the Federal Government intervene in matters related public opinion - especially when doing so appears likely protect fundamental civil liberties - caution should always exercised ensure only those instances truly merit use of said authority . After all , we elect our representatives both State & National levels order they act behalf America's citizenry , accordingly it behooves us take steps ensure they do just this : protect our freedoms rather than becoming too powerful impede them

Sample Solution

The federal government has an important role to play in ensuring that the rights of all its citizens are protected, regardless of their race, gender, or any other characteristic. This includes protecting people from discrimination and guaranteeing the right to marry for same-sex couples, as well as preventing states from legalizing activities that are still considered illegal at the federal level (such as marijuana). However, this does not mean that it should have unlimited power to intervene in matters that could otherwise be decided by state and local governments. In order for the federal government to remain accountable to its citizens and retain legitimacy in public opinion, it must exercise restraint when considering whether or not to use its powers in such cases. When weighing whether or not it is appropriate for the federal government to take action on a popular movement supported by a majority of Americans, several factors should be taken into account. First and foremost is the degree to which civil rights protections may be at stake – particularly with regard to equal protection under law — if no action is taken. If those rights appear likely to be violated without intervention (as was seen with civil rights), then some kind of action may very well be necessary and justified. Another factor which should also be taken into consideration is how much of an impact will occur if action isn’t taken: while same-sex marriage had support nationwide even before legalization through Federal actions, there were still many states where couples would face various levels of hardship because such unions weren’t legally recognized until said Federal action occurred; thus intervening was probably warranted since it brought about a wider scale change than individual state efforts could have done alone.