Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Uhhhhhh the US Constitution protects dissent but it does not say Judges can make up their own laws based on their own personal beliefs.I'd say the same to you. I hear there are plenty of despotic tyrannical countries that would be pleased to have you.
Maybe Putin could use you. He doesn't like dissent either.
Putin is no longer the leader of Russia.
It wasn't voted on by the people. You still don't quite get the concept of mob rule, do you?
Yep, I saw it thanks. Doesn't change my point in the least.It was voted on by a representative democracy. I posted the voting record, ravi.
Uhhhhhh the US Constitution protects dissent but it does not say Judges can make up their own laws based on their own personal beliefs.
Spot on.
The courts were meant to read the laws, and tell us what they mean and if they are constitutional or not, Not to change what they have always meant. There is a mechanism for that, it is called either passing a new law, or a constitutional amendment. It was never meant to be the power of the courts alone to rewrite the constitution.
Now Jeff Gannon and Larry Craig can get married.
Mob rule: The Mayor of San Franfreako declares same-sex marriages are legal.It wasn't voted on by the people. You still don't quite get the concept of mob rule, do you?
Well stated. Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison said the court's power is to say what "the law is," not what it should be.
Mob rule: The Mayor of San Franfreako declares same-sex marriages are legal.
Mob rule struck down by the Constitution: The people of CA. will vote on same-sex marriage.
So, you think the CA Constitution is just a piece of paper, when it suits your needs.Peaceful protest standing in the face in tyrrany... man needs a medal..
ahh Jeff Gannon.. THAT was some fun times in politics...
That's incorrect. Marriage IS, in fact, a state-constructed concept. That is why, during marriage ceremonies, the person officiating says "by the powers vested in me by the state of ______________" Marriage is not a product of religion. Clergy can only perform a legal wedding if recognized by the State.
I think calling them 'civil unions' is ok. But my husband would still be my husband whether we were "married" or "civil unioned". So I think it's kind of silly.
Of course, no religious entity should or could be forced to marry anyone it chooses not to recognize.
just a little law lesson.
the initial prop in cali was to amend statute.
the court then ruled the statute was illegal based on the cali constitution. this is what the court is supposed to do. remember? examine laws to determine if they fit within the constitution. it's called "balance of powers"
this new prop is to amend the constitution.
come on folks, it's american civics.
Why? Do unequal rights turn you on?
"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer
Marriage was created by God, as stated in the Bible, one of the oldest historical books in the world. It is defined as between one man and one women. The states each formed this into their constitution. Now Liberals want to redefine the definition of marriage because it doesn't fit their agenda template.
I am not against Civil Unions, but changing the definition of marriage is absurd. The Constitution states it can not make laws about or against religion. Marriage was created as a religious covenant, as shown by the relationship between Jesus and his Bride.
The majority of this nation does not want gay marriage legalized. Enough of them do not vote. There are 60 million values or evangelical voters. Not all of them vote. If they did (like they should) we would have a very different nation.
It's our right to elect another Adolf, if we, the people, want to. California is following the law here. Court rules statute is unconstitutional, so they now get to vote for amending the constitution to make the statue constitutional.
Here is Nebraska, voters are going to vote on a constitutional amendment that will forbid race based quotas across the board. If it passes all affirmative action in the state will be illegal...just like it is in Michigan and California.
It's how we do things in a democracy....we can elect tyrants if we want to.
True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights. I can see that forbidding race based quotas is acceptable, because having them actually does deny someone's civil rights. But voting to LIMIT the rights of a group that is granted freely to other groups isn't quite cricket.
