These ruling usually have unintended consequences, generally negative ones.
In that case politicians can decide when and when not to act to support the laws voted in by those who put them in office.
Roe v wade should have been left to the states and so should gay marriage.
Unintended consequences? Try ripping the country apart and causing many to doubt the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the constitution. If wholesale abortion is a “constitutional right”,then how could many in good conscience take an oath “to uphold and defend”?
Ping.
That’s not the shadow they should be worrying about...
” HELLO... I’m here from the givernment and I’m here to OBFUSCATE..”
/snide...
The proposition is not a referendum law, it's an amendment to the California State Constitution.
It was done that way to overrule the appelate court decision that overturned the original California referendum preventing queers "marrying" each other. Retro nomenclature and references intentional...
So the question really at issue is whether the SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to overturn an element of a State Constitution.
It's unprecedented to imagine that it does. The States are sovereign, and if the federal union doesn't like the State Constitution, it's a matter for Congress to debate, not the SCOTUS, because that was the body that accepted the State application for inclusion in the Union.
Courts don't have the right to re-write the founding documents of either the Union or the States of the Union.
To put it in clearer terms, do the Courts have the right to declare the Constitution Un-Constitutional?
I can think of nothing more absurd.
The USSC will allow this. The only thing that keeps sodomite marriage from becoming a reality aside from God’s directive is His Natural Law and thousands of years of common sense.
There is nothing in man’s Law itself that would prohibit this.
This is a spiritual issue and it will be dealt with by man’s judgment.
I don’t wish to think about what violating this Spritual Principle will mean to the US. Look to Europe to see what scoffing at what is a true spiritual law brings upon the people.
The true goal is not “equality.” The goal is to force relgions to abandon their dogma. If religions can be forced under law to change this, well that is the end of any authority and they have won.
Hopefully more than a few of them also point out the fact that two people of the same sex cannot be husband and wife, that this is an assault on the concept of language and the Court has no authority to disregard language, marriage existed before there were any marriage statutes and no same sex "marriages" existed then either because the word had and has a specific meaning, etc.
Regarding the gay “marriage” issue —
I’d like to see one of the Supreme Court conservatives declare, quite simply, “As per the Tenth Amendment, this is not an enumerated power and therefore this issue belongs entirely to the states.”
Then let the other side try to justify federal interference. There are all manner of Tenth Amendment violations on the federal law books, so it would be nice to see somebody openly try to twist the Constitution’s wording in an attempt to justify them.
The same argument could be applied to Roe v. Wade, I do believe.
That's all very nice, but what does the law say?
Is this a matter for the federal government?
Can the 3% game the legal system to impose government-by-decree on the People, using the Supreme Court as a mouthpiece and hammer?
Can someone invent a conceptual nullity, and use it in spite, in a cause at law, to destroy a conceptual reality relied on by hundreds of millions of other people?
What kind of country do we live in, where openly, exuberantly evil Sodomites can coerce honest people using the Law itself as if it were a rubber truncheon?
We've seen this coming for a long time. Our problem is ..... RiNO's, who are faithless and feckless and totally selfish, and have no concern for the people whose votes they demand as their Election-Day droit du seigneur.