You have not attempted to "educate" me or debunk what I'm saying. I'm not saying tradition and law are same thing, simply that law like most things in gov't requires the use of some convetions including how the words are intepreted..No... I am tired of explaining to people how the law works versus their idea of how tradition works. Most people cannot even make this separation, and you are one of them. I will state the facts and if you don't understand them, then I'm not going to take the time to educate another person.
The constitutions limit the gov'ts power to the power they grant or did originally and need to for them to have any real meaning beyond guidelines. Even Alexander Hamilton argued against the bill of rights because he didn't think things like fredom of speech needed protecting because the constitution did not grant the feds the power with which to take free speech away.The constitution doesn't tell governments or judges what they can do, but what they can't do. It is a document of affirmations. There is nothing in the documents that affirm marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how law works. Say it with me now: this is the wording of the law.
Sure you could interpret a constitution in other ways but it looses much of its pont and power then. But that is a different argument anyway.
We aren't talking about that. We are talking means not ends, I wish liberals could remember to separate the two.I admit that the language of the time probably didn't consider gays, but I don't admit that this is a reason to deny gays the right to marry now.
not really and you mean social. There are concrete ways in which these traditions manifest themselves such as how words are interpreted.The values of tradition, while important, are subjective. Whose tradition are you referring to?
Nope, if the branches are allowed to take over the roles of over branches it is detrimental to the rule of law and separation of powers even if other branches allow it/do little, or can do little, to fight it. America and other nations are awash with judicial activism and arbitrary power because of that reasoning.Additionally... whether or not the judges are being activists is irrelevant. There are two other branches that can weigh in on this matter. They either do, or they don't. If they don't, then you'll have to accept the ruling and move on.
Umm we can go on what they say they meant and what precedent and tradition tells us.This is impossible, unless you can resurrect the authors and have them sit on a permanent court. They are the only ones who can tell you its original intent. Until then, the body of the law is interpretive which is why we have judges and juries in the first place.
Ie they have to decide whether liberal social policy conflicts with the rule of law and if it does then the rule of law should be abandoned.The wording takes on new meaning given the context of law. This is why there are judges and supreme courts in the first place. They have to weigh modern needs with constitutional law and see if the modern needs conflict with the wording of existing law. .
Again you're not getting this. Phrases and words have different interpretations and even change meanings. If we want the rule of law, if we want the laws to stay the same for everyone and not to be changed by the judicary whenever they feel like it, including at the behest of the executive, then we certainly need to retain the original or traditional meaning of terms and phrases until such time as the legislature decides a change is needed.The judges don't rule based on a history book or some obscure term such as "as they were originally intended"... they look at the WORDING of the law. Say it with me now: the WORDING.
Whois saying this? I'm simply saying wording usually needs interpreting and the original and traditional interpretation must hold for constitutions, the rule of law and the speration of powers not to suffer greatly.They can't presume or insert traditional values where none exist in the wording.
The supreme court embarked on judicial activism, it went beyond its alloted branch and made law, that is the sphere of legsilature.The separation of powers has not in any way been violated. The Supreme Court ruled, now the legislative body can rule if it decides, and so can the public if enough people petition for a referendum.
So when marriage was talked about in it, if it is, then it meant between a man and woman. For a judge to change this is for them to remake the law or constitution.The idea of gay marriage never even existed when the document was made,
Woman's suffrage came through an amendment I believe.This same interpretation is why blacks were able to be freed and the women's suffrage movement was successful. The document was applied to situations outside of the scope of its original creation. That is precisely what the judges are supposed to do.
You mean how they bloody well like. Well hello tyranny and arbitrary power, you know there is nothing saying this must be used for only liberal social causes if it had slipped your mind.It's entertaining to see you struggle to define judical activism, but I won't feed this fire.
They interpreted the letter of the constitution according to the simple formula I stated above. If you can't accept that, then oh well.
Bottom line:Words and phrases can have many interpretations, if the original/traditional one is not retained by the judiciary, unless the legsilature changes it, then every time they change it they are effectively changing the constitution. This is what you don't seem to understand or at least ignore because your liberal agenda. This goes erodes the rule of law which is reliant of laws being interpreted consistently and arbitrarily, it undermines the constitution turning it into guidelines for any judge to try and fit their agenda into and undermines the seperation of powers by giving the judiciary legsilative powers.
But most importantluy it increases the risk of executive tryanny because the executive has a lot of power over the judiciary and if they work in concert using this form of arbitrary power the risk of them underming the entire framework of a free constitution greatly increases
Then each time that is done the constitution is rewritten in that area. You are admitting my point.The wording will always be interpreted differently according to the times,
Equality is often vague. An equal right to own property could be interpreted as anyone can equally own property if they buy it according to laws equal for all individuals or it can be interpreted as saying all people should own an equal amount of property.Equal protection means equal protection, you can't spin it to mean something else.
The judiciary does not have legislative power, they have judical power. They form the law
Seriously did you not proof-read what you wrote. You say don't have legsilative power and then say they form the law.
I agree, though that wording must be interpreted the same unless the legsilature intervenes or the constitution is remade by the judiciary.The legislature can debate the moral ethics of this law if they so choose, but the judiciary has no such luxury. They can look at the morals but ultimately the judiciary is bound by the wording of the constitution.
I agree, tradition and precedent are vital in this.It is the legislature, voted in by their constituents, who are bound to their audience. The judges are not appointed by the public, so they are not bound by what "tradition" means to the public... their job is to look at the letter of the law and make sure it is being followed.
And I'll say it was unconstitutional and an example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.Now, I will only say this one more time: what the judiciary did was fair in accordance with the constitution.
You confusing the role I give to tradition here. It is simply to interpret what words and phrases in the law and constitution mean. These must stay constant unless the legsilature wants to change them.If there are moral reservations over "tradition" being violated, then it is the job of the legislature or a public referendum to change things.
Do you know what the rule of law means?Please cite which laws were undermined according to Iowa's State Constitution. Do this in your next post.
It undermines the rule of law because it means that they can be aribtrarily redefined. as they have been in this case. The judiciary needs to uphold the constantcy of the law, including the all important interpretation.