:-)
Considering the complexities of these two cases, and attempting to draw direct relation to the issues we’ve formerly discussed here is — creative. Pray, tell me, WHICH of these two scenarios do you think were decided correctly — or were either?
I think in arguing these issues between two primary entities (in a judicial setting) — State v. Federal — one misses the MAIN focus of “liberty” or “rights.” The individual. The individual is not a pawn of the State, or the the Federal Government. Yet the Judicial system — Government itself — has come to regard the individual as just a cog in the machine.
Tell me, how does the “individual” figure into your scenario? Into your views of these two cases? Who are the BEST guardians of the rights and liberties of the individual?
Something to chew on, given the two cases your presented...
I believe both were decided correctly.
Tell me, how does the “individual” figure into your scenario? Into your views of these two cases? Who are the BEST guardians of the rights and liberties of the individual?
The question is actually where the state, as opposed to the federal government fits in. That was the claim made and that which I'm trying to get clarification on. You seem to believe that the state is primary, yet you take positions on two Supreme Court decisions that contradict that.