Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT
Once again, you are arguing the wrong question.

The court HAS NO RIGHT to make a determination of whether or not pretended marriages of this type should be recognized by California law. You, and others, are arguing the merits, when what is required is to argue against the usurpation.

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.

The discussion here supposes that the problem is insufficient arguments against homosexual behavior and homosexual "marriages" in front of the court - but the problem is that the court HAS NO RIGHT TO LEGISLATE, whatever the arguments are and whoever makes them.

142 posted on 05/15/2008 1:14:23 PM PDT by Jim Noble (ride 'em like you stole 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Noble
I'm making the case for removing these types of issues from the state's jurisdiction. By making marriage a legal right, that leaves the courts fairly wide sway in deciding what all the ramifications of that right are.
146 posted on 05/15/2008 1:19:39 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Noble

I disagree with your application of what appears to be a general rule.

I DO think courts have a right to discard laws which are in opposition to the constitution of their jurisdiction.

If for example the Virginia legislature decided to pass a civil union law next year, I would expect our Supreme Court to throw it out as unconstitutional, because we have a constitutional amendment that says they can’t do that.

In another example, our state passed a bill last year that established “regional transportation authorities”, which were APPOINTED boards which had the right to enact taxes on the region.

Our Supreme court just ruled that law unconstitutional, because our constitution requires that ALL taxes be voted on by an ELECTED body (so we can elect them out of office for raising our taxes).

In this case, maybe the court has ruled outside it’s constitutional bound. But I disagree with the idea that a court has no right to ever overturn a law, even one passed by a ballot initiative. The constitution exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


198 posted on 05/15/2008 2:13:47 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

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?

200 posted on 05/15/2008 2:18:23 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson