• You are here
  • Forum Header
  • Topics not covered in other forums.
stricken
Gold Boarder
Posts:1057

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120212 2 years, 5 months ago
The seperation of church and state is the problem here i believe. The people who seemed opposed to equal rights are the ones that claim to have values that are above others because they read a book and choose to follow that faith. Most of these people are voters that follow the direction of thier chosen faiths leaders.
Now on the political part of this the problem would be the loss of the single persons tax revenue. Lets face it the taxes for a single person is greater then a joint filing and the children deductions. So why not take these deductions away from married people? Like thats gonna happen!
And my last point on this subject is just look at why anyone would say thier love for another is any differnt then anyone else. Marriage is a public event that some people get to share with others, While others remain in the shadows of society.
One other note about voting, Its a part of our history people have given thier very lives to allow our vote to count and so many other people in the world dont have a say in the direction there lives and their childrens lives will proceede. So not voting is like the spoiled child who dosent appreciate themselves or thier right to have a say.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Strider1
stricken
Gold Boarder
Posts:1057

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120213 2 years, 5 months ago
splatter_face wrote:
pettyblue440 wrote:


"I think if people value democracy, they had damn well better get out and exercise their right to vote while their vote still means something."
-Bob Weir


why does my vote mean anything if an appointed judge can overturn an election?


I hate to disagree with Bob, but I believe the time of our votes mattering has already come and gone. I have a very difficult time believing anything that happens post 9/11[/quote]


Even a appointed judge gets appoinnted by elected officals dont they?
splatter_face
Platinum Boarder
Posts:2202

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120214 2 years, 5 months ago
I'm from Chicago, pre appointed officials are ok here......we have become fine with it
.....nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
scar1et_f1re
Platinum Boarder
Posts:4900
R U Kind?

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120237 2 years, 5 months ago
splatter_face wrote:
I'm from Chicago, pre appointed officials are ok here......we have become fine with it


Now that is funny, how many of your mayors have been jailed for offenses while in office. It has to be 3 of 4 of them.
FFF! Family is Forever!!!

May God bless and keep you always
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
The following user(s) said Thank You: DancingTurtle
Dire Wolf
Platinum Boarder
Posts:1432
when the police knocked y'all...

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120250 2 years, 5 months ago
I nominate myself for benevolent dictator. All hail!!
scar1et_f1re
Platinum Boarder
Posts:4900
R U Kind?

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120276 2 years, 5 months ago



enhanced-buzz-wide-5351-1328641309-38.jpg
FFF! Family is Forever!!!

May God bless and keep you always
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
sweetwilliamisdead
Junior Boarder
Posts:131

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120412 2 years, 5 months ago
the gay community is having a big week, today Washington state passed legislation allowing them to marry. Good for them, im not gay but im all about tolerance and protecting the rights of those who have less common views, we are all odd
lostsailor
Senior Boarder
Posts:552

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120427 2 years, 5 months ago
Back to the point that some people are upset that judges are allowed to overturn votes. Read the decision and you'll understand. The government must have a solid reason to take away a group's right, especially when that right involves one of our most cherished institutions.

Why should voters be allowed to take a group's right away? They did it in Califfornia and the courts ruled it unconstitutional. They came back with prop 8 and.... it's unconstitutional.

Why should voters allow such a hateful, and ugly, and ultimately improper law.

should the majority of voters be able t osay that redheads should not be allowed to marry.... that would be ok? Have you ever datyed a redhead? I have.... it's a generic imbalance, that's what the red hair shows. So therefore we should keep redheads from procreating. Right? [no offense to the gingers reading this... only thing I could think of...]

Go read the decision and then come back and argue the judges did something wrong. It's a well crafted decision designed to withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.
B-Rad
Gold Boarder
Posts:1123

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120455 2 years, 5 months ago
Well the South voted to have slavery before the feds came in and said that it wasn't going to be allowed. Women's right to privacy also came from the courts, as did civil rights against Jim Crow. So our vote is important but civil and human rights trump the right to vote in discriminatory policies.
lostsailor
Senior Boarder
Posts:552

Re: Way to Go Calif Courts! FU Calif voters

#120546 2 years, 5 months ago
B-Rad wrote:
Well the South voted to have slavery before the feds came in and said that it wasn't going to be allowed. Women's right to privacy also came from the courts, as did civil rights against Jim Crow. So our vote is important but civil and human rights trump the right to vote in discriminatory policies.


I agree.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

The provisions of the ConstitutionThe Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.[9]

The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:

“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ”


The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:

“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ”


The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is be void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution.[10]
Time to create page: 0.51 seconds