[ReignOfError]

I understand what you are saying. I just wish we would vote on such things instead of resorting to the personal opinion of judges concerning issues of morality. The judge's job is to apply the meaning of the law as intended by those who wrote it and nothing else.

I agree, but it's a two-way street. I would prefer that judges never strike down a law passed by elected representatives, but I would also prefer that representatives never pass an unconstitutional law.

[gunsofaugust]

but I would also prefer that representatives never pass an unconstitutional law.

I a law was Constitutional for 200 years, and the very men who were at the founding convention approved it in their state, this reveals the intent of their words.

A judge does not get to just come along and make it up and rewrite the intent of the Constitution. That is why they gave us the amendment process as the way to change the constitution.

If you use judges as a replacement for amendments, then you have an Oligarchy and not a Republic.