Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
More unconstitutional legislating from the bench by unelected people in black robes.
Wake up America and end this tyranny.
That is what we are doing, Harrier, we are waking up and stopping the church and those with a religious agenda from preventing marriage equality. Religion, nor the church has control over who can or cannot marry except for in their church.
Indeed, because an independent judiciary, a part of our system of separation of powers, granting more rights to a portion of the citizenry, constitutes a "tyranny."
The justices job is to apply the constitution, not to pull rationales our of their gluteus maximus and legislate from the bench.
We have three independent branches of government with separate powers.
If you don't like that, then amend the constitution.
Meanwhile, take your argument up with Thomas Jefferson.
Quote:
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
Another good call. The losers will whine about the will of the people not being followed, and that judges should be elected, yadda yadda yadda.
The "will of the people" is TRASH. There was a time when the will of the people was Jim Crow laws, not letting women or blacks vote, etc. The real name for the will of the people is "Tyranny of the Majority' which has long been over-ruled in case after case.
Federal judges should NOT be voted in, as again, the will of the people is trash and subject to the same idiocy that gave us these stupid laws.
Upholding the Constitution is NOT a popularity contest for voters to decide, nor do states get to violate the constitutional principle of equal treatment.
That is what we are doing, Harrier, we are waking up and stopping the church and those with a religious agenda from preventing marriage equality. Religion, nor the church has control over who can or cannot marry except for in their church.
Religion and churches have nothing to do with the Michigan law.
Join us in the 21st Century where we have a secular government in this republic, will you?
The justices job is to apply the constitution, not to pull rationales our of their gluteus maximus and legislate from the bench.
Applying the Constitution is exactly what happened here, the judge found the law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
We have three independent branches of government with separate powers.
Apparently that's one too many for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
If you don't like that, then amend the constitution.
Meanwhile, take your argument up with Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not the one who has a problem with this very legal proceeding, that would be you. You haven't given me a legal argument as to why a judge can't make this ruling. Your entire reasoning is based solely on the fact that you don't like the outcome. Federal judges have been deciding on the constitutionality of state laws for more than 200 years now, and I don't see the problem.
And I'm not sure why I should take it up with Jefferson, he didn't write the Constitution (the more liberal Federalists did), he wasn't in the room when it was written (he was in France) and he privately worked to prevent its adoption.
Thomas Jefferson was wrong about many things, this being one of the more egregious (although mostly in hindsight). Judicial review is the underpinning of what made this a great country, from a human rights standpoint.
It's late to take up the argument with him, but many people in his own time did, rightly denouncing the tyranny of the majority, the "swinish multitude", etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
