Both cases underscore the principle that constitutional rights and limits must be interpreted within the context of federalism, balancing state and federal interests.

In both cases, the Court entirely deferred to legislative judgment, without providing any judicial interpretation of constitutional limits.

The rulings in both cases ignored the concept of federalism, focusing exclusively on individual rights without regard for state powers.

Both decisions were made without any consideration of the constitutional text, relying solely on public opinion at the time of the rulings.