“It’s the federal courts that have been the troublemakers not the state courts.”
It’s both. Federal courts have been worse (most notably the US Supreme Court) but there have been plenty of unconstitutional usurpations by state courts as well.
For example, the Massachusetts Constitution has the following provisions:
- Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Nevertheless the State “Supreme” Court struck down an act of the legislature defining marriage, as violating the Massachusetts Constitution.
You’re mixing things up. I can sympathize with the situation you are describing but I have to point out your logic is off.
The MA courts have their role and the MA legislature has its role; the MA executive still another role and the state constitutional provisions you cite state unequivocally that neither of the branches shall infringe on the other.
But the MA Court was not infringing on the MA Legislature’s role in legislating. It was ruling on the law’s state constitutionality. That is in within its role to do.
The MA Legislature can legislate that donkeys are to be given human right protections. The MA Courts can rule such a law as unconstitutional within the state.
However, there is nothing stopping the People Of Massachusetts from amending their state constitution in the same spirit that Ted Cruz is proposing to amend the US Constitution. Such an amendment would basically assert that the state courts are to butt out of the state constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Generally this is how it has worked in the past where an amendment to the US Constitution is echoed in state constitutions.
Cruz’ amendment would undo the travesty of Proposition 8 in California where federal courts struck down a state constitutional amendment! That was vicious unfounded overreach and it was done by a homosexual judge. The People of California had gone through great pains to amend their state constitution and then a homosexual federal judge rules it unconstitutional under the US Constitution.