• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court overturns a Voted in act?

madhatter85

madhatter85

Transhumanist
What gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn something that has been voted into action? In 2000 Voters put into force a law banning same-sex marriage. 61% yes yo 39% no.

Then comes along the courts and overturns something that clearly the voice of the people have voted to enforce.

what gives them the right to overturn democracy?
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Their job is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
madhatter85 said:
What gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn something that has been voted into action? In 2000 Voters put into force a law banning same-sex marriage. 61% yes yo 39% no.

Then comes along the courts and overturns something that clearly the voice of the people have voted to enforce.

what gives them the right to overturn democracy?
Click to expand...

Well, the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the constitution. The people cannot vote something that is unconstitutional - like outlawing same-sex marriage. I don't know if the people can amend the constitution in an unconstitutional way, because the Court can strike down laws approved by Congress that it finds unconstitutional.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances of our democratic republic. As long as it's functioning along with the other branches of government, it is not over-running democracy. :eek:
 
madhatter85

madhatter85

Transhumanist
angellous_evangellous said:
Well, the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the constitution. The people cannot vote something that is unconstitutional - like outlawing same-sex marriage. I don't know if the people can amend the constitution in an unconstitutional way, because the Court can strike down laws approved by Congress that it finds unconstitutional.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances of our democratic republic. As long as it's functioning along with the other branches of government, it is not over-running democracy. :eek:
Click to expand...

that makes sense, It seems that the Vote in 2000 may have been unconstitutional because of the wording?

because now a constitutional ammendment defining marriage only between a man and a woman would not make co-habitation illegal or what have you.

I guess its the side they chose to define from, Instead of banning "this or that" they just make it defined this "this way" or "that way"

Just like how it's illegal to sell Weed, but it's not illegal to buy it. but it's illegal to own.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
madhatter85 said:
What gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn something that has been voted into action? In 2000 Voters put into force a law banning same-sex marriage. 61% yes yo 39% no.

Then comes along the courts and overturns something that clearly the voice of the people have voted to enforce.

what gives them the right to overturn democracy?
Click to expand...

1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
2. The Supreme Court recently overthrew a democratically enacted Washington D.C. ban on handguns on the grounds that it violated the Constitution. Was it proper for them to do so?
 
madhatter85

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Autodidact said:
1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
2. The Supreme Court recently overthrew a democratically enacted Washington D.C. ban on handguns on the grounds that it violated the Constitution. Was it proper for them to do so?
Click to expand...

In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
madhatter85 said:
In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
Click to expand...
That's because we're not a true democracy, we're a constitutional democratic republic. So basically you're opposed to the American system of government?

So you disagree with the recent decision striking down the D.C. handgun law?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
btw, does anyone know, is there any country in the world that is a true democracy, with no court to decide whether laws are constitutional?
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
madhatter85 said:
In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
Click to expand...

Would it be better to have the right to keep your handguns and not have to suffer the indignity of having homosexuals legally marry, or would you rather give up the handguns and continue state sanctioned bigotry against homosexuals?

Would it make sense to have a popular vote of the entire citizenry every time someone wanted to challenge an established law?

Hell, we'd never get out of the polling booth.
 
madhatter85

madhatter85

Transhumanist
The Voice of Reason said:
Would it be better to have the right to keep your handguns and not have to suffer the indignity of having homosexuals legally marry, or would you rather give up the handguns and continue state sanctioned bigotry against homosexuals?

Would it make sense to have a popular vote of the entire citizenry every time someone wanted to challenge an established law?

Hell, we'd never get out of the polling booth.
Click to expand...

if i had to pick, i'd give up handguns
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
madhatter85 said:
In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
Click to expand...

For one, that's because we're not a democracy. For another, we shouldn't be a democracy. th ewhole point of the Constitution and most of our laws is to protect everyone, not just the majority. What you're asking for is "majority rules". Are you sure you want that? I seem to recall that LDS weren't always so accepted in society as they are today. Would you rather the majority got to make all the decisions about religion? That would mean you'd always lose.

The idea is that we get to vote on things, within limits. We still have to follow the rules set by the Constitution. The Supreme court is there to make sure that things follow those rules. I, for one, am glad they are. I don't want the majority ruling this country. I think it'd be in even worse shape than it is now.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
So you disagree with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Washington D.C. handgun case?

madhatter: would you answer my questions, please.

I get so tired of having to ask Christians to answer questions politely posed. Sheesh, didn't your mother teach you any manners?
 
Troublemane

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
madhatter85 said:
In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
Click to expand...

that would be mob rule. i strongly disagree. i think the supreme court overturned the law because it would violate equal protection, for example you can't make a law that only applies to one set of people, such as homosexuals, or heterosexuals, or blacks, or jews, or blue-eyed people, etc.
:angel2:
 
Mathematician

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
madhatter85 said:
In a true democracy, the people should decide. There is only the illusion of democracy in this country
Click to expand...

In a true democracy, inane institutions like "institutionalized marriage" would fall apart without the state. Democracy is best expressed in 1.) its direct form AND 2.) free association.
 
Mathematician

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
mball1297 said:
For one, that's because we're not a democracy. For another, we shouldn't be a democracy. th ewhole point of the Constitution and most of our laws is to protect everyone, not just the majority. What you're asking for is "majority rules". Are you sure you want that? I seem to recall that LDS weren't always so accepted in society as they are today. Would you rather the majority got to make all the decisions about religion? That would mean you'd always lose.

The idea is that we get to vote on things, within limits. We still have to follow the rules set by the Constitution. The Supreme court is there to make sure that things follow those rules. I, for one, am glad they are. I don't want the majority ruling this country. I think it'd be in even worse shape than it is now.
Click to expand...

Not to divert the topic away from its original purpose, but republics were founded by intellectual money interests who used "mob rule" as an excuse to put themselves into power. There was a great fear that common people would enact wealth redistribution and other welfare policies (coincidentally, some form of welfarism was advocated by Adam Smith, Locke, and other theorists). "Tyranny of the majority" gets pretty ludicrous when you consider the fact we replace it with tyranny of the minorities. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it needs to be put in context.

A lot of times republicanism trivializes issues and dumbs down people into partisan camps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top