|
Oh, and one aspect of the decision with which I do strongly disagree is the assumption that child welfare is inherently a governmental role. To me this gives the government carte blanche to do anything that can be hooked to the "who will think of the children" wagon.
Since the assumption is that government has the right to interfere in promoting child welfare then the logic that the burden lies in disproving their theory of welfare is sound.
I'm of the view, however, that only in the most extreme situations is government warranted in dictating what is best for children and therefore the burden should be in proving that not only is something harmful but that the resolution is equally clear.
Arguing this, however, is like arguing that the application of the commerce clause is unconscionably broad in its application. For the most part the courts stopped debating the issue a long time ago and the New York view is not unusual.
|