its not like they are getting married in catholic churches dont see why ppl get all butt hurt: "marriage is our word its not fair".
grow up.
anyways homosexuals should have the same exact legal rights as any other person.. including civil union not my problem what they do in the comfort if their homes aint hurting me.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I personally just believe Civil Partnerships are a good way foreward. They're not in anyway inferior to marriages. Why get lots of people pissed off over semantics?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I said above.1. Because all laws, passed by whatever means, are subject to review after they are adopted.
2. Yes, definitely a judge should have that much power. That is their job. You are looking at it the wrong way round- the question is, should the voters of one state have the power to override the constitution on a whim? Nope, and it's the judiciary that acts to stop that.
People are acting as if this judge is just some guy who has been given an overwhelming veto he used at will. No, he is the arbitrator of a complex legal framework that has been activated by those seeking a review of a law they believe to be in error. They brought a proper legal process; he administered it.
Then what is the point of having an election or for that matter an vote on anything if all it takes is a few lawyers and one persons ability to overturn them.
Why even bother with them any more.
This is something that should be worked out before its voted on.
Not be subject to a minority who don't like it being allowed to overrule the majority that voted for thier choice in say on the matter.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Then what is the point of having an election or for that matter an vote on anything if all it takes is a few lawyers and one persons ability to overturn them.Why even bother with them any more.
[/B]
This is something that should be worked out before its voted on.
Not be subject to a minority who don't like it being allowed to overrule the majority that voted for thier choice in say on the matter.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Just because you've 'thought about' whether things will be legal or not doesn't mean they actually will be found to be. Most politicians simply do not have the kind of knowledge of the constitution that judges have. If we had pre-analysis of all laws, they'd end up being carried to court and then they'd be wrong half the time anyway.Let me give you an example; the health care legislation passed recently. Republicans stonewalled the whole thing for months past where it would have been if it had simply been voted on. If it had to be determined legal before hand, they would have carried suit all the way to the supreme court and gummed the whole thing up for possibly years. Nothing would ever have gotten passed.
Republicans have the right to push their own agenda, just like everyone else does. They are after all, ''republicans'' not democrats. Their whole ideology is based around republic which utilises democracy, not democratic state which is ruling by majority.
Besides, USA is not a democracy, but a republic.
Therefore, it (should) have a clear stance, according to constitution what should be legal for vote and what not.
Even then, if constitution guarantees you the right to free speech, there is no point or sense in voting on it, then thinking about it after.
EDIT- After constitution has rectified a potential law to be in accordance with it, then it should be put to the vote. IF constitution isn't clear on it, then rectify it between judges.
It makes far more sense.
yes, the states can get pissed cry and moan and try to find every legal loophole they can and go to court.. till then the law is the law especially if the federal government passes it.
it be just like the 60's and 70's the military coming into a state to squash riots or any dissent which imo is highly illegal to use the military against its own ppl.. "if" ppl try to fight it in mass..
anyways today that sh#$ wouldnt happen most modern ppl dont stand up for what they believe in anymore which is why we have lost so many rights..
think of the children!! wont some one think of the children!! its for national security!!
the cry of the tyrant and oppressor
Many issues of social rights for a minority group are 'forced' upon states. It's how it worked when the country legalized interracial marriage decades ago. It wasn't put to a vote, because it would have been voted down. Federal judges said it was unconstitutional and they rectified it despite the majority at the time disagreeing. If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.
Originally posted by BackFire
If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.
Exactly. If unconstitutional it shouldn't bother with the vote at all. I am not familiar with the constitution of USA, however I trust there are numerous experts who can interpret this and see if it follows the US constitution.
Myself, I am not for arming or guns, HOWEVER regardless of the majority thought on this, if constitution says it is a right, then it should be.
I do have a question, though - if constitution is to be changed and/or amended who makes that decision and how?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do have a question, though - if constitution is to be changed and/or amended who makes that decision and how?
If both the House and Senate make a 2/3 vote then they can jointly put together an amendment. Then the legislature of each state has to ratify the amendment. Once there is 3/4 acceptance the amendment is made part of the Constitution, successful amendment usually reach that point in about a year.