I like the idea of police wearing cameras, but you're jumping to conclusions by assuming that it has a "clear and enormous benefit".
I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm relying upon empirical data like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Nobody knows what the long term consequences are or how this technology may be abused.
And unless a better, more tangible case against them can be presented than vague and airey fear, uncertainty, and doubt of speculative "unknown unknowns", we should expect to discover the consequences through experience shortly.
We don't know whether this is the right choice for every single community in the US either.
Is that the bar, now? Any law that is passed has to be "the right choice for every single community in the US", by the standards of every individual? That sounds like a recipe for a totally dysfunctional government. Even in a republican democracy, sometimes the majority gets to rule.
Just because something seems like a good idea to a lot of people doesn't mean it should become federal law.
I don't think anyone has been arguing that everything that "seems like a good idea to a lot of people" should become a federal law, so what point are you addressing here? A strawman?
Something should become federal law only if it cannot be implemented at the local or state level.
That's just your opinion, not the American tradition.