Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Then the laws should be changed, Diane.
It's a tremendous waste of people's time and money to set up an election and have someone come along and say, 'sorry folks'.
The system was set up so that the courts only rule on a law if it is challenged on legitimate Constitutional Grounds. And following that
argument, I guess that one might believe that the Brown vs the Board of Education should have never happened. Afterall, the laws of discrimination
were passed by the legislature and approved of by probably the majority of people. If instead of the courts making this decision, it had been put to
a vote, the discrimination would have continued. Even President Eisenhower, a native of Kansas was very bigoted and very much opposed that decision.
He only enforced it because it was his Constitutional duty to do so.
Our system should first determine the constitutionality of a law and then allow people to vote on it. But once the courts decide on it there should be
no backtracking and once again reversing the laws.
The problem is that the current system makes a mockery of elections and thereby democracy itself.
That would make a mockery of the entire US government and how it was set-up. Besides, often it is only a part of a law that is declared
unconstitutional. Like in the case of C C and Rs that are passed by governing bodies, many of the provisions are upheld, and some are not, like
discrimination, or rules against the flying of the American flag, or the installation of satelllite dishes----those have been declared an infringment
upon the rights of the individuals.
IMO the courts have too much power and they are inconsistent. The same Constitution is interpreted in different ways depending on who is making the
judgement. So saying that the courts are a system of balance that keeps us from doing 'bad' is nonsense. The death penalty is constitutional in some
states and not in others (what's more black and white than life and death). The abortion rights people have the upper hand now but it could change in
a flash and still be 'constitutional'. Every president makes sure to appoint a Supreme Court judge that shares 'his' interpretation of the
Constitution.
Yes, courts do change as does the intrepretaiton of the Constitution. The Constitution is an amazing piece of work. It was intended to
be vague to accomodate changing situations. It is why it has lasted so long. And BTW, I do not know of anyone who is an abortion rights person,
most I know are in favor of pro-choice for women. And sometimes justices surprise their appointers --- Warren certainly surprised
Eisenhower---Warren, never quite forgave himself for the awful decisions he made as Gov. of California that took away the rights of many Americans.
Equal justice has been and still is a work in progress.
This entire 'constitutional' argument is a strawman used by those who are in agreement with the decision, and really nothing more. If you read this
thread you will note that all of those who talk about the importance of supporting the Constitution (against "Mob Rule") are in fact liberal nomads
who simply agree with the current ruling.
I guess one could say that arguing in favor of a majority vote that was extremely well funded by forces from outside of California is a
strawman argument by nomads who are homophobic and want to deny civil rights to a part of the society. This is not a liberal, conservative issue, it
is an issue of civil rights and over the progression of this country, it has been the courts who have protected Constitutional Civil Rights. It began
back with the Marbury vs Madison decision and has evolved from there. Yes, we have come a long ways fromt he Dread Scot decision.
|
That is an old one. Oh, wait a minute, I
remember it.
Does that mean 
, yup. 
