Posted on 12/22/2004 10:48:18 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
When you look at it, our governmental system is majority rule from the top down.
State Legislatures go by majority rule; the U.S. House and Senate are both governed by majority rule. As well, the courts, namely SCOTUS are majority rule bodies.
Think that the courts aren't governed by majority rule? SCOTUS voted 7-2 in Roe v. Wade.
The issue of abortion used to be an issue which was a states right issue, until SCOTUS federalized it through majority rule tyranny.
Unless "We the People" act soon, the majority of Americans who are against same-sex marriage may soon find that SCOTUS has forced all the states to legalize same-sex marriages, like they did with the abortion issue, and take away this institution which has been state-controlled since the founding of America.
We have already seen the Supreme Court of Massachusetts engage in majority rule tyranny by forcing the state of Massachusetts to accept same-sex marriages.
So what it comes down to is this: Will you engage in your Constitutional right and demand that the House and Senate pass the Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, which would ban same-sex marriage as well as polygamy, and then have this Amenment passed on to the states for ratification, or will you let the courts engage in majority rule tyranny and ram this down your throat?
Remember, the U.S. Constitution gives "We the People" the right to press for Constitutional Amendments like the one concerning same-sex marriage.
Our Founding Fathers incorporated Constitutional Amendments as a means to overcome Judicial majority rule tyranny.
What I propose is a Constitutional Amendment where the voters of each state will decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in their state, and those states which ban it would not have to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Why not also have a Cons. Amendment which would send the issue of abortion back to the states, where it belongs? Why not put both Amend's into one?
Maybe incorporate banning of evolution being taught in schools? Let the voters decide whether or not evolution will be taught in the schools in their respective states? Add it to the other two in a Constitutional Amendment?
Those who don't want same-sex marriage, yet don't want a Constitutional Amendment stopping same-sex marriage from being forced upon the states really lack any backbone in fighting for what they believe.
Those who don't want same-sex marraige, wont fight for a Constitutional Amendment banning it, yet have no problem with the courts engaging in majority rule tyranny and forcing it upon the states, obviously prefer the view of 9 SCOTUS Justices over the view of 110,000,000 voters from around the U.S.
Are 2 heads better than one? Who knows.
But I can argue with a high degree of certainty that a total of around 110,000,000 voters from all the states are definitely better than 9 SCOTUS heads.
I welcome any input into this discussion.
Meant to ping you to # 20.
I do agree with you that the courts should have their power seriously curtailed, and not just in the area you are talking about.
The way you are proposing to use them, they most certainly are.
Excellent idea. Finding a way to recall U.S. Senators more easily. Doing that would really help.
I will look into it.
Why not also have a Cons. Amendment which would send the issue of abortion back to the states, where it belongs? Why not put both Amend's into one?
If they must amend the Constitution, then this is the way to do it!
It's easier for Citizens of the state to control the state legislators (who at one time elected U.S. senators) than it is for the people to control congress directly. We've had mob rule for a long time. People are so used to it, they will continue to submit.
I would be more for an amendment that would limit judges in their ability to "make laws" instead of strict reading of the Constitution, which is their job. Legislatures make laws, Judges do not. Any laws judges have made, including MA same sex marriage, are in fact, not valid, and illegal.
WHile your amendment is quite valid, you mustn't put more than one law into an amendment, or what happened in LA may happen again. They have to defend their amendment, because it also banned civil unions.
It's unfortunate that we are even in a place where we have to ban something, that was never a right to begin with. That is Judicial tyranny. And Judicial tyranny is exactly WHY we need the amendment. So these Judges an't say it's there, when it clearly isn't.
Agreed. The only amendment I want to see is one that repeals the 16th.
And one that repeals the 17th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.