Oh sweet Jesus, I'm over 10K posts...I have to cancel my account.
As opposed to blocking traffic and being a general nuisance
175 arrested at California gay marriage ban protest
Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances... any of this sound familiar?
Wait, hold on, the phone is ringing...
Celtic, that was your high school Civics teacher on the phone and he's changing that B- to a C. Sorry. Didn't mean to get in trouble.
The state appellate courts and federal circuit courts act as a check and balance for the other two branches of government.
Also, Controversy is not a bad thing. It makes people think.
I am just curious if any of the states that allow same sex marriage had a drop in tax revenue? I am wondering how many people use it to gain tax breaks.
Separation of powers does not necessitate the judiciary be completely independent and the basic arbiters of the constitution. They have never had such a position in Britain. The highest court is the house of lords and the legislature can direct the judiciary how to interpret the constitution and laws.You are applying a liberal, American view of it as well, viewpoint to all democratic states where it does not belong.Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances... any of this sound familiar?
And they should only do so by applying the fixed and original meaning of the laws and constitutions. That is the point.The state appellate courts and federal circuit courts act as a check and balance for the other two branches of government.
Last edited by Wessexman; 06-03-09 at 11:35 PM.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Judicial Review is not found in "democratic theory". It is a legal theory, the foundations of which within American jurisprudence are found in Marbury v Madison, and is succinctly stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the body of that case:
From Marbury, we can see that Judicial Review does not invalidate any state action--it identifies which acts of the legislative or executive branch of government are invalid by reason of identifiable conflict with a higher corpus of law (i.e., either state or US constitution). Whatever invalidity may be ascribed to a particular act is present in the act long before a judge rules on such invalidity.It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Equally important, and the only aspect where your pretentious ponderation on the Separation of Powers holds any relevance to this thread, is that while it is the province of judges to say what the law is, it is not the province of judges to say what the law should be. Where law has not been established by the legislative branch, the courts are not charged with filling that void--and their attempts to do so have never resulted in any lasting good for this nation.
Thus, the best outcome is achieved when a state resolves its stance on gay marriage via the legislature rather than the courts. The legislature is the branch charged with declaring what the law should be; if the declaration is to be made for gay marriage, for it to be justice that declaration must emanate from the legislative branch and not the judiciary.