To: Jim Noble
The people of California have already deliberated on this issue. They've made a decision. The Court has written a law, based on the Court's preferences, WHICH THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO.
Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters?
To: Labyrinthos
Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude?Suppose the moon were made of green cheese?
319 posted on
05/15/2008 5:47:28 PM PDT by
Jim Noble
(ride 'em like you stole 'em)
To: Labyrinthos
Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters? I doubt it, but as Jim Noble said, what if the moon were made of green cheese? A freedom-loving people is not going to pass a slavery law, but a freedom-loving people DID pass a preservation of marriage law.
If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his sister, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry two women, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his dog, or a 12 year old, should that be overturned? If not, why not?
410 posted on
05/15/2008 9:51:13 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: Labyrinthos
Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude?
Specifically banned on
federal level via
appropriate procedure. See
Thirteenth Amendment.
IMHO, voter-approved initiatives
should be valued higher than regular legislation...
495 posted on
05/16/2008 8:59:53 AM PDT by
MirrorField
(Just an opinion from atheist, minarchist and small-l libertarian.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson