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.
Sometimes the majority is just about numbers and not the rectitude of something.
Doesn't the term "the tyranny of the majority" mean anything?
I have read elsewhere that some folks think that the US is a republic rather than a democracy (it's both) and that the republican form of government (and there's a good argument for republicanism as a theory of governmet, I accept that) protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority which allegedly occurs in countries with parliamentary forms of government.
Now what exactly did these judges do? Did they interpret the law? If so then they did their job. Should judges have that ability taken away from them? Should there only be the executive and legislature now? That way lies tyranny.
You mightn't agree with the decision but that doesn't mean the judges did anything wrong, they just interpreted the law in a manner you don't like. It's not the end of the world.
I would think the folks who don't want gays to marry can start it all over again and this time make sure they comply with the law.
Jeez it's not a fricking natural (or unnatural) disaster, it's just a legal ruling.
Referendums, more often than not, are often ruled unconstitutional. The people of California simply pursued the wrong legal angle in this case. They will now pursue an amendment to the Consitution, which the court cannot override. But ammending a Constitution has a higher bar than a referendum...for good reason, but once done, is virtually impossilbe to be undone.
Actually no. The Californian constitution can be altered with a simple majority.
It doesn't make much sense, but there you go. I've been reading a bit more into this because of the whole gay marriage ban, and it seems like they used to use their constitution basically as legislation. Its a stunning 110 pages long.
Perhaps a good argument for why changing the constution should be left up to the legislature and not for referendums. I've always thought the referendum system was pretty shit anyway, imo its partially responsible for Californias recurring budget woes.
Actually no. The Californian constitution can be altered with a simple majority.
It doesn't make much sense, but there you go. I've been reading a bit more into this because of the whole gay marriage ban, and it seems like they used to use their constitution basically as legislation. Its a stunning 110 pages long.
Perhaps a good argument for why changing the constution should be left up to the legislature and not for referendums. I've always thought the referendum system was pretty shit anyway, imo its partially responsible for Californias recurring budget woes.
Partially? I believe I read that AHHnold said 72 percent of the Budget is LOCKED in because of previous Referendums. The Legislature and the Governor can not touch that 72 percent at all for any reason.
