Yes and one of the rights retained by the people is to vote for representatives
I'm in complete agreement so far.
who will pass laws that are wanted by the people. Judges are overstepping their authority by striking down those laws. Laws that are completely acceptable under the constitution.
Still in complete agreement.
Laws that regulate behaviour. like homosexual behaviour. If that is what the people want.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
The Constitution is clear about the limits of the power of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the limits on powers to the states. Doesn't matter if 100% of the people want extra-Constitutional laws, the laws are still invalid because they have no basis in the Constitution.
Clearly that is what the people wanted however since the liberals could not sway the public they turned to judges. Unelected Judges that do not represent the people.
And once again, we are in agreement. Activist judges are bad. But in asking them uphold laws that states have no basis in the Constitution passing in the first place, you're asking for your own kind of activist judges. And those activist judges are bad, too.
The Constitution limits the powers of government. It does not limit the freedoms retained by the people.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
So what you are saying is we cannot have laws that regulate behaviour. So no laws against public intoxication, having sex with animals, public nudity, homosexuality etc...
So if those things are against what the framers wanted when they wrote the constitution then why didn't they (in their time) strike down those laws. Those laws existed when they were in power so why didn't they declare them unconstitutional then?