Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: For the people, by the people??

  1. #1

    For the people, by the people??

    Apparently not in CA.

    People vote to ban gay marriage

    Court says, "Stick it up your butt, you folks are dolts"

    People vote to put it in the State Constitution this time

    Court says they'll hear [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAJC147QAJ.DTL]lawsuits [/url]against the will of the people in a legal ballot initiative! :huh::huh:

  2. #2
    Equal rights are only good when you agree with them. Right?:rolleyes:

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2874821]Apparently not in CA.

    People vote to ban gay marriage

    Court says, "Stick it up your butt, you folks are dolts"

    People vote to put it in the State Constitution this time

    Court says they'll hear [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAJC147QAJ.DTL]lawsuits [/url]against the will of the people in a legal ballot initiative! :huh::huh:[/QUOTE]

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=cr726;2874909]Equal rights are only good when you agree with them. Right?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Nope! Only when they're constitutional or biblical!

  4. #4
    Or when they are constitutional and not blblical?

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2874927]Nope! Only when they're constitutional or biblical![/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    What difference does it make what the people think? All actions must now end in the court room.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=cr726;2874952]Or when they are constitutional and not blblical?[/QUOTE]

    Prop 8 is both!

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=kaol;2874960]What difference does it make what the people think? All actions must now end in the court room.[/QUOTE]

    yup, for the people, by the judges

  8. #8
    Prop 8 had no right to be on the ballot.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2874994]Prop 8 had no right to be on the ballot.[/QUOTE]

    Why?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2874821]Apparently not in CA.

    People vote to ban gay marriage

    Court says, "Stick it up your butt, you folks are dolts"

    People vote to put it in the State Constitution this time

    Court says they'll hear [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAJC147QAJ.DTL]lawsuits [/url]against the will of the people in a legal ballot initiative! :huh::huh:[/QUOTE]



    Let me try to answer your question with another question. In the few years before the American Civil War, some politicians, most notably Stephan A. Douglas thought that the issue of slavery should be put up to popular sovereignty, that is, let the people (and the states) decide whether they would permit the institution of slavery in their state or territories. This was especially important concerning territories entering the Union as U.S. states and whether they should have slavery or not.

    If this a referendum of this type was held in the southern states at the time, every single southern state would have overwhelmingly voted to keep slavery.

    Now would you argue that slavery should have been kept because people voted for it even though it denies a class of people of their inalienable rights? Would that be the right thing to do?

  11. #11
    California judges are elected, btw.

  12. #12
    Prop 8 is the will of the people a majority at that! BTW California is one of the most Liberal states around!

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2874999]Why?[/QUOTE]

    You should NEVER be able to take away peoples rights. You can get married in a court room, so spare me the religious bull****.

  14. #14
    Simple question. Why do you care if two people want to marry one another?

    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2878127]Prop 8 is the will of the people a majority at that! BTW California is one of the most Liberal states around![/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=cr726;2874909]Equal rights are only good when you agree with them. Right?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Like Libs and Affirmative Action, right?

    The people, rightly or wrongly, used the Democratic Process to pass what they wanted. It passed. The court, it seems, should not be over-ruling the poeple in this case.

    And I say that even though I completely disagree with the general principle of what they approved, as I think homosexuals should be able to wed (albeit under a different name than "Marriage") under the State authority and with all the right/respons ect.

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2874964]for the people, by the judges[/QUOTE]

    This does seem to be the way of things nowadays, sadly. Pretty much everything ends up there, and is decided there, eventually.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2878629]Like Libs and Affirmative Action, right?

    The people, rightly or wrongly, used the Democratic Process to pass what they wanted. It passed. The court, it seems, should not be over-ruling the poeple in this case.[/QUOTE]

    One of the main functions of the court is that it exists to protect the constitutional rights of minorities in situations where the democratic process fails. The voting process isn't black and white, if the court feels that rights are being violated, it certainly is well within its own right to step in. That's the whole basis of a system of checks and balances. If the court bowed to the will of the people 100% of the time we'd be screwed as a society.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2879025]One of the main functions of the court is that it exists to protect the constitutional rights of minorities in situations where the democratic process fails. The voting process isn't black and white, if the court feels that rights are being violated, it certainly is well within its own right to step in. That's the whole basis of a system of checks and balances. If the court bowed to the will of the people 100% of the time we'd be screwed as a society.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    If prop 8 violates the California state Constitution then the court in California may invalidate the vote.

    Just because the American people in 1954 would have voted for school segregation (although no such national referendum is possible) this did not stop the Federal Supreme Court from invalidating it. The principle here is similar.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2879062]The principle here is similar.[/QUOTE]

    Said principle being that The Courts > The People.

    The opinion, regardless of how biased or what it may be based on, is more important than the Will of the People.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2879070]Said principle being that The Courts > The People.

    The opinion, regardless of how biased or what it may be based on, is more important than the Will of the People.[/QUOTE]

    If the court deems that the will of the people is unconstitutional, than yes. Such is our system of government. This isn't anything new Fish.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2879070]Said principle being that The Courts > The People.

    The opinion, regardless of how biased or what it may be based on, is more important than the Will of the People.[/QUOTE]

    Actually, no. The Constitution of a state is considered to be the ultimate expression of the will of people -- because its creation is a more involved and considered process than a simple referedum. Whereas a single vote may be based on the passions of the moment the constitution remains as the measuring stick by which all statutes and actions are to be judged. The way our system works, if the people are truly unhappy with the court's interpretation of the constitution, they can change the constitution or, slowly and deliberately, change the judges & their representatives.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us