Agreed
What would you call it if the federal judiciary ordered the police all over the country to stop arresting crooks? That would be tyranny, right?
No, that would be bad policy, maybe dereliction of duty. The federal government already says that states may not arrest crooks unless they are read their rights. Is that tyrannical? No. What was tyrannical was when states arrested citizens and deprived them of their rights.
The 'Miranda Rule' is an attempt to secure civil rights while still aloowing police to arrest crooks. It isn't perfect, but it strikes a balance between different needs in society: civil liberties and personal security.
Now you could argue that a citizen has a right to live free from crooks, so that any policy which gets rid of more crooks is beneficial regardless of what other rights are trampled in the process. The Bill of Rights stands in direct opposition to that argument.
Likewise you could say that religion is a good thing and so more (state supported) religion is better, no matter what other rights are trampled in the process. Again, the Bill of Rights stands against that line of reasoning.
Likewise you could say that religion is a good thing and so more (state supported) religion is better, no matter what other rights are trampled in the process. Again, the Bill of Rights stands against that line of reasoning.
Whoa, whoa, please, not everything is about individual rights! You rejected the word "tyranny" but there must be some word for what the federal government would be oppressively doing if it hampers a lower government entity such as a state so that it (the lower entity) cannot do what it needs to do?
Do you disbelieve in any state sovereignty, only national? It is not metaphysically possible for the federal government to oppress a state?