- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,651
- Reaction score
- 11,470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Bravo! Their moral conscience was indeed the ruling factor in their vote. And the dirty little secret is it never would have made it on the ballot if it was not considered constitutionally sound. The legality and constitutionality of anything that goes on a ballot is determined BEFORE it is put up for vote. If a measure is deemed legal and within the guidelines of the constitution and then voted in by the people, no one judge should be able to negate what has been passed by voters. One judge striking down a voted in measure is akin to that judge saying "everyone but me is ignorant".
Alabama placed a vote on their ballot to amend their Constitution to bar interracial marriage. That Alabama Constitutional amendment was invalided by the Loving decision in 1967.
Was Alabama's vote to ban interracial marriage Constitutionally sound?
(BTW & FYI - When a law is found unconstitutional, that law is not stricken from the statutes or State Constitution, it remains in the printing until removed later by legislative action or a new Amendment. In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the discriminatory language from their Constitution. 33-years after the Loving decision. The really sad thing is that 40% of the people voted to retain the language even though it was void.)
>>>>