ratified, the Supreme Court famously declared: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. Id., 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725. Well' over a century later, the nation continues to adhere to the same principle of both state and national sovereignty. 2. Current Views The continuing potency of the states has recently been emphasized by the Supreme Court in a series of cases demonstrating an increased sensitivity to state independence. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) (<HOLDING>); id. at --, 117 S.Ct. at 2383 (“[T]he whole
holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment holding unconstitutional the enforcement provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun purchasers recognizing that the public is certainly interested in the prevention of enforcement of ordinances which may be unconstitutional holding that nigcs individual background files are law enforcement records subject to exemption 7c and that in the absence of a waiver disclosure is not required by foia because individuals mentioned in law enforcement investigatory reports  have a presumptive privacy interest in keeping their names undisclosed holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under  41412