Why Bother With Elections

[Tank]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

 

[dcraelin]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

while I wouldnt go as far as your linked post does

It is very disturbing and dangerous in a Republic when unaccountable judges can negate the will of the people.

the ruling in Utah came right on the heels of another federal ruling in Utah that loosened rules on polygamy

NPR Debate on Utah Polygamy Ruling Shows Case's Far-Reaching Effects

 

[aaronleland]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

We have elections because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, where the people elect officials to represent them in government. Both the people and elected representatives are subject to the Constitution and its case law.

It’s incumbent upon elected officials, therefore, to know this case law and legislate accordingly; and when the people through their elected representatives enact measures offensive to the Constitution – such as Proposition 8 or Amendment 3 – the Constitution authorizes the courts to invalidate those laws.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘unelected people’ or ‘judicial fiat,’ the issue has to do with lawmakers exhibiting their ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law.

Constitutional case law in general, and 14th Amendment jurisprudence in particular, is available to everyone to read, including elected officials. And if elected officials don’t understand the case law, their state’s attorney general will be able to explain it to them, and also explain why the measure they propose is indeed un-Constitutional.

If state lawmakers are upset that their laws are being invalidated by the courts, there’s a very simple solution: stop enacting laws that are clearly un-Constitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you do not like the judges be more careful who you vote for.

 

[dcraelin]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

We have elections.......

You are completely backwards in your understanding of this country. We fought a revolution against the British to get away from unaccountable judges. Trial by jury was one of the issues people rallied around.

Your idea of a Republic has been rejected by the very court system you seem to worship so much.

Judges should interpret existing law not create new law.

The meaning of the 14th clearly did not speak to gay"marriage", especially in light of the fact that womens suffrage was not enabled by it, AND, ironically, that polygamy wasnt allowed in Utah as a result of the 14th when it was admitted as a state. The judges in this case should have had just a smidgen of common sense given the states history.

hopefully these two Utah cases will wake the nation up as to the slippery slope this nation is on if it allows gay"marriage".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

while I wouldnt go as far as your linked post does

It is very disturbing and dangerous in a Republic when unaccountable judges can negate the will of the people.

the ruling in Utah came right on the heels of another federal ruling in Utah that loosened rules on polygamy

NPR Debate on Utah Polygamy Ruling Shows Case's Far-Reaching Effects

Incorrect.

It’s neither ‘disturbing’ nor ‘dangerous,’ as the states and citizens have the right to appeal judges’ rulings, and have those decisions reviewed by the appellate courts.

In fact, the rule of law and judicial review are at the very core of our Constitutional Republic – where unlike a democracy the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 and Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the will of the people is not being ‘negated,’ because, again, the people are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and the people lack the authority to seek to deny a class of persons their civil liberties.

One’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

 

[dcraelin]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

while I wouldnt go as far as your linked post does

It is very disturbing and dangerous in a Republic when unaccountable judges can negate the will of the people.

the ruling in Utah came right on the heels of another federal ruling in Utah that loosened rules on polygamy

NPR Debate on Utah Polygamy Ruling Shows Case's Far-Reaching Effects

Incorrect.

It’s neither ‘disturbing’ nor ‘dangerous,’ as the states and citizens have the right to appeal judges’ rulings, and have those decisions reviewed by the appellate courts.

In fact, the rule of law and judicial review are at the very core of our Constitutional Republic – where unlike a democracy the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 and Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the will of the people is not being ‘negated,’ because, again, the people are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and the people lack the authority to seek to deny a class of persons their civil liberties.

One’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

nothing new in this post just the same old unsubstantiated empty statements

see my reply above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why Bother With Elections

All of the schooling . . . sigh

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

while I wouldnt go as far as your linked post does

It is very disturbing and dangerous in a Republic when unaccountable judges can negate the will of the people.

the ruling in Utah came right on the heels of another federal ruling in Utah that loosened rules on polygamy

NPR Debate on Utah Polygamy Ruling Shows Case's Far-Reaching Effects

Incorrect.

It’s neither ‘disturbing’ nor ‘dangerous,’ as the states and citizens have the right to appeal judges’ rulings, and have those decisions reviewed by the appellate courts.

In fact, the rule of law and judicial review are at the very core of our Constitutional Republic – where unlike a democracy the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 and Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the will of the people is not being ‘negated,’ because, again, the people are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and the people lack the authority to seek to deny a class of persons their civil liberties.

One’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

nothing new in this post just the same old unsubstantiated empty statements

see my reply above.

And yet again incorrect.

From the ruling in the Utah case:

[T]he United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protected the sexual relations of gay men and lesbians. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).

The Plaintiffs have presented a number of compelling arguments demonstrating that the
court should be more skeptical of Amendment 3 than of typical legislation. The law
differentiates on the basis of sex and closely resembles the type of law containing discrimination of an unusual character that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer and Windsor. But even without applying heightened scrutiny to Amendment 3, the court finds that the law discriminates on the basis of sexual identity without a rational reason to do so. Because Amendment 3 fails even rational basis review, the court finds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law.

The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Now that the statements have been substantiated, and are not '‘empty,’ your only response is to cite case law declaring that 14th Amendment equal protection rights do not apply to same-sex couples.

 

[Tank]

California Proposition 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WelfareQueen]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

We have elections because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, where the people elect officials to represent them in government. Both the people and elected representatives are subject to the Constitution and its case law.

It’s incumbent upon elected officials, therefore, to know this case law and legislate accordingly; and when the people through their elected representatives enact measures offensive to the Constitution – such as Proposition 8 or Amendment 3 – the Constitution authorizes the courts to invalidate those laws.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘unelected people’ or ‘judicial fiat,’ the issue has to do with lawmakers exhibiting their ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law.

Constitutional case law in general, and 14th Amendment jurisprudence in particular, is available to everyone to read, including elected officials. And if elected officials don’t understand the case law, their state’s attorney general will be able to explain it to them, and also explain why the measure they propose is indeed un-Constitutional.

If state lawmakers are upset that their laws are being invalidated by the courts, there’s a very simple solution: stop enacting laws that are clearly un-Constitutional.

We have been through this multiple times and you know the bolded is a flat out lie. No Federal Court has the authority to repeal or nullify law under our Constitution. The Court gave itself that power....not We the People. I am not sure why you insist on repeating the same lie in thread after thread.

For those of you that are interested, this is a thread another OP created. It will help everyone understand this issue more clearly. Thanks.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-federal-judges-the-power-to-repeal-laws.html

 

[WelfareQueen]

Further clarification.

Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

It doesn’t.

It does, however, give Federal courts the authority to invalidate any law determined to be un-Constitutional.

And that can be found in the following locations in the US Constitution:

Article III, Section 2

Article VI

WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

William G. COOPER et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas Independent School District, and Virgil T. Blossom, Superintendent of Schools, Petitioners, v. John AARON et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Instit

The Court has no authority under the Constitution to "invalidate" law. There are only three approved remedies for bad Law under the Constitution.


1. Presidential Veto which must be over-ridden by a 2/3 majority of Congress.


2. Vote the bastards out the passed the bad Law.


3. Allow the Legislative Branch to repeal, amend, or pass new law as this is the only Branch of Government that has that authority.


All three Branches of Government are co-equal in considering Constitutional questions. The Judicial Branch has no more authority to consider Constitutional questions than any other Branch. The unconstitutional travesty that is judicial review exists only because the Executive and Legislative Branches and surrendered their mandated oversight of Constitutional questions.

The Legislative Branch of Government should be strongly considering Constitutional questions when formulating law. The fact the Congress is not adequately doing their job does not mean it gets to be punted to be Judiciary to decide which laws are valid and which laws are not valid. That is not their role...it has never been sanctioned by We the People...and it is unconstitutional.

 

[Tank]

We the people is now, we the sheeple

 

[dcraelin]

Incorrect.

It’s neither ‘disturbing’ nor ‘dangerous,’ as the states and citizens have the right to appeal judges’ rulings, and have those decisions reviewed by the appellate courts.

In fact, the rule of law and judicial review are at the very core of our Constitutional Republic – where unlike a democracy the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 and Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the will of the people is not being ‘negated,’ because, again, the people are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and the people lack the authority to seek to deny a class of persons their civil liberties.

One’s civil rights are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

nothing new in this post just the same old unsubstantiated empty statements

see my reply above.

And yet again incorrect.

From the ruling in the Utah case:

[T]he United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protected the sexual relations of gay men and lesbians. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).

The Plaintiffs have presented a number of compelling arguments demonstrating that the
court should be more skeptical of Amendment 3 than of typical legislation. The law
differentiates on the basis of sex and closely resembles the type of law containing discrimination of an unusual character that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer and Windsor. But even without applying heightened scrutiny to Amendment 3, the court finds that the law discriminates on the basis of sexual identity without a rational reason to do so. Because Amendment 3 fails even rational basis review, the court finds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law.

The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Now that the statements have been substantiated, and are not '‘empty,’ your only response is to cite case law declaring that 14th Amendment equal protection rights do not apply to same-sex couples.

case law is largely bullshit, especially when it comes to the 14th amendment. You have answered none of my points. The burden of proof is on you.

The validation the gay community so desperately seems to be seeking will never come from Court decisions.

But in their rush to push this through the courts they may be damaging the Democracy/Republic. The prop 8 case essentially denied standing to millions of people of California, while at the same time the hypocritical Supreme Court gave standing to a case that had already been won in DOMA. I believe Marshall said part of the restrictions on our court system was that law would need to be decided on the basis of real cases, not test cases, not show trials. When you grant review to a case already won you are setting up a sham.

Hopefully the Utah cases on polygamy and Gay-marriage will wake people up to the damage this could do to our society, and like Iowa, remove judges that take it upon themselves to ignore the will of the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We could save a lot of money and political angst by just appointing judges to make laws for us. We’re already at that point that our lives have been turned over to five unelected people sitting on the Supreme Court. "Let it be written . . . Let it be done."

The latest judicial scandal is a Federal Judge who has by judicial fiat declared that any prohibition against homosexual marriage is “irrational” as well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Read more at Why Bother With Elections When We Have Judges like Robert J. Shelby

This reminds me of California's prop 187

We have elections because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, where the people elect officials to represent them in government. Both the people and elected representatives are subject to the Constitution and its case law.

It’s incumbent upon elected officials, therefore, to know this case law and legislate accordingly; and when the people through their elected representatives enact measures offensive to the Constitution – such as Proposition 8 or Amendment 3 – the Constitution authorizes the courts to invalidate those laws.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘unelected people’ or ‘judicial fiat,’ the issue has to do with lawmakers exhibiting their ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law.

Constitutional case law in general, and 14th Amendment jurisprudence in particular, is available to everyone to read, including elected officials. And if elected officials don’t understand the case law, their state’s attorney general will be able to explain it to them, and also explain why the measure they propose is indeed un-Constitutional.

If state lawmakers are upset that their laws are being invalidated by the courts, there’s a very simple solution: stop enacting laws that are clearly un-Constitutional.

We have been through this multiple times and you know the bolded is a flat out lie. No Federal Court has the authority to repeal or nullify law under our Constitution. The Court gave itself that power....not We the People. I am not sure why you insist on repeating the same lie in thread after thread.

For those of you that are interested, this is a thread another OP created. It will help everyone understand this issue more clearly. Thanks.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-federal-judges-the-power-to-repeal-laws.html

I am not sure why we are going through this 210 years after Marbury.

We the People majorities cannot invalidate civil rights.

The courts, a co-equal branch of government, keep check on the legislative and the executive overreach.

 

[dcraelin]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Judiciary branch has become just as corrupt and tyrannical as the Legislative and Executive. The whole country is going to shit because the American people are too self absorbed and too cowardly to be bothered. By the time I reach retirement age my goal is not still be living here.