Which brings us back to "who decides?" what injures society. There are only two choices. The People who through their representatives have every reason and motivation to make the correct decision OR judges. You've picked judges, because you want to have a temper tantrum that the People can be wrong.
You are so scared that the People will oppress you that you want to invite a "good king" to take over. That's as foolhardy as it is dangerous.
"--- We are not bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court when deciding whether a state statute impermissibly infringes upon individual rights guaranteed in the State Constitution so long as state constitutional protection does not fall below the federal floor, meaning the minimum guarantee of individual rights under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 719 (1975).
The holding in Oregon v. Hass is:
"[A] State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this [United States Supreme] Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards." [Emphasis original.]
Contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution represents neither the primary source nor the maximum guarantee of state constitutional liberty.
Our own constitutional guarantees against the intrusive power of the state do not derive from the Federal Constitution. The adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1791 was preceded by state constitutions developed over the preceding 15 years, and, while there is, of course, overlap between state and federal constitutional guarantees of individual rights, they are by no means identical. State constitutional law documents and the writings on liberty were more the source of federal law than the child of federal law. --"
From the link posted before;
"-- It is not within the competency of government to invade the privacy of a citizen's life and to regulate his conduct in matters in which he alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty the exercise of which will not directly injure society. --"
Which brings us back to "who decides?" what injures society.
As I've said before, the 'People' have already decided, in both their State Constitutions, and in our federal 'Law of the Land'.
The People who through their representatives have every reason and motivation to make the correct decision
We been agreeing on that for quite some time.
OR judges. You've picked judges,
Not true.
because you want to have a temper tantrum that the People can be wrong.
You're mischaracterizing what I've written, --- that the People cannot enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.
You are so scared that the People will oppress you that you want to invite a "good king" to take over.
Bizarre 'take' on my arguments. -- What can be said other than you must be dreaming about what I've been posting here..