lets put this into perspective...
in many parts of america, local referendums have been used to take away rights of property owners, to want to have smoking in their business [ creating a local law]......this is what is know as direct referendum or direct democracy
and it has been applauded by the left....is using this sort of action.
this story deals with a state referendum, in which the whole state voted.......meaning the whole state used direct democracy to institute a constitutional amendment to the state......and the left is against it?
so much for democracy .when the left does not like it!
i myself say that direct democracy is a terrible thing [referendums], the founders hated them because it did not secure the rights of individuals citizens....as we see with smoking bans......and you saw with a constitutional amendment.
It's only the people when they agree with him, otherwise it's the force of government. Like any good socialist.
No, you misunderstand. Laws against SSM base their restrictions on gender, not orientation. Men are not allowed to marry men, and women are not allowed to marry women. No state has a law in place that I know of preventing gay people to get married. Using misleading terms leads to faulty arguments.
my question to you is:
are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people"
since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of........:2razz:
Either way, equal protection means just that, equal protection. The States cannot deny a Right based on gender anymore than they can deny a Right based on orientation.
Well said.
And, I see you're from the big city. I'm from Gaston County. The large metropolis of Dallas, NC - well, actually in the country about 5 miles outside of town.
Sexuality issues now equate socialism? You do realize socialism is an economic policy right?
if you read it said the congress decides what a republican form is.......that is false the constitution structure decides what a republican form is...
States were already direct voting for senators before the 17th amendment is ever created....that is unconstitutional...as is direct democrracy in america
Oh i forgot in this case you think the "left" is the only people who use referendums. Tell me again about Prop 13 in Cali...
Nowhere in the Constitution does it actually state exactly what a republic is or should be, nor that the people cannot, in a state, vote directly for laws. The definition of a republic that we generally think of the US as is actually from the Federalist Papers, not the Constitution itself. So there is nothing unconstitutional about referendums within states (not sure about federal government though). In order for something to be unconstitutional, then it must go against what the actual Constitution says. The main thing protecting our rights from the tyranny of the majority within our republican form of government is our constitutions, especially the US Constitution.
Now, personally I am against referendums and ballot initiatives. It think people become sheep in large voting numbers, willing to believe so many things, especially out of fear or anger. And I believe people, as a large group, are less likely to understand the way the law and government works than most elected politicians. Plus, politicians are going to be more cautious in their voting than the actual people. This goes into several things including thinking about their future and how future voters will vote on an issue (rather than being something that is only thought of for the moment, as is the case with voters voting on initiatives), where the money will come from for any monetary elements that go with the thing being voted on, and the likelihood of the law being challenged and therefore costing the government more money to defend, to name a few.
I also believe that it is just as wrong for people to insist that they have the right to vote on an issue directly as it is for others to claim it is unconstitutional for them to do so. I would absolutely support an actual Amendment to the US Constitution that banned voter initiatives, but I doubt this is going to happen.
are you kidding, the Constitution has a guarantee in it that states , the federal government and the states are to be republican, and a republican form is the structure of government, which can be seen in the Constitution.
referendum is DIRECT DEMOCRACY....are you going to me tell the founders wanted states run by direct democracy?.....
A state constitutional amendment can not infringe on the rights of Americans. State rights for state issues.
The states are not being run by referendum though. That is the difference. They are run via a constitution and a legislature/governor. Referendums can be used to put laws into place, but they are not the norm, and they can't be used to actually run the state governments either.
you would be correct IF we were operating on the constitution and how it was meant to be used.
because the USSC has deemed the federal bills of rights, as the supreme rights document.....state constitution concerning rights....have turned into second bananas.
how many people do you know who say.....my right to speech has been violated by my state, and then seek state resolution to that violation...NO they run directly to he 1st amendment.
states are suppose to be a republican form of government, ...so that direct democracy can NEVER be used.......as a majority vote ,on people rights..........that is why the founders did not create a democracy...but a republic...of divided power
Actually, states see free speech cases too. They just aren't talked about as much as those that go the federal route.
In fact, it was state court decisions on same sex marriage violating state constitutions that led to at least some of the state amendments stating marriage is between a man and a woman only. Baehr v Miike, a state of Hawaii supreme court decision that stated not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was discriminatory, was actually one of the main catalysts for DOMA. It was a California state court decision that led to Prop 8.
that was a sight error in my post, ..did not mean to say run, as in the big picture, ..but run as in instituting a law...i said in republican forms....you cannot have referendums...that is direct democracy, giving the people power to vote directly on issues,. like the Athens did...the founders hate that form of government and constructed the constitution [federalism] to prevent that...hence the guarantee.
from what is stated, under constitutional law of the founders.
it should be rare for a citizen to ever be in a federal court.
because under constitutional law, the federal government [congress ]only has authority over 4 classes of citizens...they are listed in the constitution
citizens were meant to argue their rights in state courts, ....with the citizen able to petition the federal government to hear their case, if they felt the state had not given them justice.
today everyone always talks about the bill of rights on the federal level, instead of the states declaration of rights.
marriage as i stated before.......whether you believe marriage is a natural right or a civil right.......you cannot use a right on another citizen ONLY ON GOVERNMENT, CAN YOU EXERCISE A RIGHT ON.
you cannot use a natural right against a natural right , to force getting a license.
you cannot use a civil right against a natural right to force getting a license.
Plenty of other countries with republican forms of government include referendums.
Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We were the first ones to define republic as not using direct democracy at all. And that definition was not actually enshrined in the Constitution itself, at least not in a way that limits the states to allow the people to vote on some issues.
List of Swiss federal referendums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Referendum dates and results - Australian Electoral Commission
Referendums held in the UK - UK Parliament
Personally, as I've said, I disagree with ballot initiatives and/or referendums. However, I also recognize that they are not truly prohibited by the US Constitution, at least not on a state level. But then, both sides use referendums. In fact, the biggest argument being used right now to support bans on same sex marriage is that the people voted them in place. (Not a valid argument anyway, since whether voted in by the people or their representatives, makes no difference in whether those laws should be struck down as violating the US Constitution. It is still a law being enacted by the state/the majority that violates rights of others or part of the US Constitution.)
you would be correct IF we were operating on the constitution and how it was meant to be used.
because the USSC has deemed the federal bills of rights, as the supreme rights document.....state constitutions concerning rights....have turned into second bananas.
how many people do you know who say....."my right to speech has been violated by my state", and then seek state resolution to that violation...NO they run directly to the 1st amendment.
states are suppose to be a republican form of government, ...so that direct democracy can NEVER be used.......as a majority vote on people rights..........that is why the founders did not create a democracy...but a republic...of divided power
Your argument makes no sense. The government issues licenses for marriage. The government recognizes marriages as legal or not. So it is the government that is denying the right to marry to some citizens based on their relative sexes/genders. This is why the court cases are being challenged against the government.
And the state constitutional amendments on same sex marriage (or defining marriage as between a man and a woman only) is why they are going to federal court. Because they can't violate the state constitution if the thing being challenged is in the state constitution but violating the US Constitution.
It is a somewhat important distinction since orientation would probably fall under Rational Basis Review, while gender falls under Intermediate Scrutiny.
My father lives in Gaston County. In fact, most of my father's family is from Gaston County. I was raised mainly in Cleveland County but spent part of my early childhood in a small town in Gaston.
if you give 1 person all power...he will become a king, and a tyrant
if you give a few people all the power they will become and oligarchy, and rule the people like they are serfs
if you give the people all power , the 51% will control the 49% and rule over them taking away their rights......history has shown this to be true.
So you divide power into 2 half's, and no one has all the power to become a tyrant...because they don't have all power
everything i said is true about progressive in their early movement.
It was not the USSC that deemed the Constitution as the supreme law...It was the states that agreed to that. Each sent representatives to sign the document ratifing each and every section and amendment of the constitution as supreme over all other laws.