Remedial Civics for Aroces. Constitutions are created by a governments founders. They are amended as needed by AMENDMENTS that are voted on in various ways. Laws are passed by elected legislatures, approved and executed by the executive and interpreted by the judicial against the constitution. California has this additional experiment where a law can be passed by popular vote but then still must be executed and then interpreted by the the judicial against the constitution. Laws are not part of the constitution. Laws are not amendments. Now in Arocesland, you can setup your government any way you want.

Gee, because our government doesnt work that way.

Really?! I didn't see that passed as an amendment to anyone's constitution. So obviously your statement is completely wrong.

Haha Ninjadude you rock! Aroces knows hes wrong.. why do you think he didn't come back? I count this as a win *nodnod* Proves hes good at blowing it out his wazz, but doesn't know all the facts.

I may have missed it then when a Judge campaigned to be be elected at his/her position.
Who then and when?


Then what the heck was the proposition for???

Nope, Judicial interpretes the law. And the law is the will of the people, right?
And you wanting a Facist government headed by Judges.


Definitely not the same as yours.

Oh really, then why bother making a proposition when no one is sure if it is constitutional until a Judge decide AFTER the proposition been approved.WHY bother asking the people about it?
So the way it should be then is ask the Judge first if it is constitutional and then have a proposition on it, makes sense?
Why on earth go to all those thing when a Judge at the end will simply say, no can do???

Even if it was passed as an amendment, what can stop Judges now from saying now it violates this or that and therefore, no can do ???
I'm telling you folks this power some of you are adoring that Judges have will bite you one day.

Wow Ninjadude got a fan and a cheer leader. Got any pom poms?

New you would come back.. was just a matter of time.. you never give up even when yer wrong.. ya know thats not really a sign of brains, willpower or determination.. its a sign of stupidity.. One who is never willing to learn from their mistakes and misunderstandings will always fail. But the yap dog mentality works for some.. keep barking til you get yer way, right? Sure hunny, whatever works for you.

Your opinion is completely flawed.

Was it majority opinion for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be passed? Was it majority opinion for apartheid to end in South Africa?

You need to understand that far to often does an irrational group make irrational decisions and far to often do rational men and women have the ability to make intelligent ones.

If the US public had its way Iran would be bombed, Iraq would be ours, Saudi Arabia would have been invaded long ago and the US would have probably taken much of Europe during World War 2.

Good thing the government was there to say, "No, no...they are our allies!"

I'm not saying the government is prudent but rather that there have been many men that have taken office(not specifically the presidential office) that have done their part to influence many peoples lives in a positive way.

Kyrus,

Let's temper the derogatory personal remarks, please, they're unproductive and inflametory. Debate the merits of your opponents viewpoints sans the personal observations, this is a formal warning.

MM

Then let's just have the Judges have all the call for you seem to believe they can never be wrong, intelligent and never irrational unlike the rest of the population.

Yes, judges interpret the law, but no, the law is not the will of the people. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that; you have claimed to have read before, but since you say things like this and claim not to understand the function of checks and balances, I can only assume you haven't read it thoroughly or completely.

Like I said, your belief that the things you don't like the government doing is exactly the same as that government working improperly is naive and grossly uninformed.

--Jaylemurph

Then who makes the law? The Representative, right? And who do they represent? The People, right?
So isn't the law then the will of the people?

I'll say again that I think you're being deliberately obtuse. We don't live in a simple democracy -- as has been pointed out (and as much as you seem to dislike it) all citizens have basic civil rights, despite what a majority thinks/wants/wishes. Therefore in virtually no situation is what the law is determined by popularity.

What those laws are changes through time and circumstance, sometimes through legislative activity and sometimes through judicial authority. Just because you're keen on the legislative branch doesn't mean a) everyone else is or that they hold some sort of supreme power over the other two branches. We've had this exact same discussion before, where you either legitimately don't understand checks and balances of American federalism (in which case you should consult a patient civics teacher) or are simply a rather lame posuer looking to drum up arguments.

--Jaylemurph

A complete and utter waste of time as any first grader could have told the originators.

What has that got to do with it? The constitution and admendments are the final determining factor. You can make all the laws you want and say they are the will of the people but if they violate the constitution as interpreted by the judges then in that case the "will of the people" is a worthless proposition. This is what you really don't understand. The "will of the people" is not the final law of the land. It must pass a constitutional test as well.

You'd have to ask the people of California that brought this proposition. California propositions are a way to avoid having the legislative branch create the law. But in this case, any first grader could have told the originators that it would not pass the constitutionality test. Ultimately it was a waste of time and money just to get certain people all riled up. Not all questions are so easily determined. Most propositions in California don't require a court test. But when obviously anti-democratic ideas come along, they must get involved. The way it should be, is the way it is. If you want to make goverrnment work differently - you can create your own country.

Again remedial civics lesson for Aroces. Once an amendment becomes part of the constitution, judges cannot overrule it. It can only be undone by a new amendment. Judges have the power they have according to the constitution. No one is giving them anything.

Bingo. We are not a straight democratic nation, despite "democracy," and the spread of it, being the buzz word and jive for so many things nowadays.

I think the word "republic" works itself in here somewhere...

Then whatever happened to majority decision? It's been replaced by Men in Black robe decision?
Nice to see how some like yourself seem to understand it until Bush does something you don't like and you call for impeachement or trial.
Same thing, had these Judges ruled against your agenda, you will be crying for the voice of the poeple. GET REAL HERE!

This is exactly what I meant by "you're being deliberately obtuse." Since I don't understand why you want people to think you're a fool, I'm not going to continue this argument with you.

--Jaylemurph

I think that says it all about AROCES.

I recommend Chris Hedges book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America.

Who is more of a fool, the fool or the one arguing with the fool?

Seems like that hit you bullseye, huh?

hey , those conservative judges simply followed the constitution. don't like it ? tough. want a country ruled by religion ? move to Iran. Bullseye.


and this book looks like an interesting read -

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America was published in January 2007. In this book, Hedges argues that the Christian fundamentalist movement emerging today in the United States resembles the early fascist movements in Italy and Germany at the beginning of the last century, and therefore constitutes a gathering threat to American democracy.

Another Judge worshiper, another bullseye,

We shouldn't hate homosexuals we should show love and respect for all people. However I do worry about the moral and religious implications for them.

Surely instead of the state endorsing gay marriage it should be helping these people realise the effects homosexuality will have spiritually.
The decision to rubber stamp gay marriage will encourage homosexuality in the eyes of many which worries me.

We need to help these people and all people find their way into heaven.
The states not doing its job properly on this one in my opinion.

Most proposition don't require a court test? Then have a court test before voting for any proposition, I think even for someone like you who prides himself for passing 1st grade can see the logic of that.

Well that would then violate separation of church and state. Of course there'll also be a huge batle over what heaven we are talking about, what religion has the right way to deal with homosexuals. There will also be a need to prove that something spiritual exists and that being a homosexual has any impact on this.

Good luck with that.

The only things we know to be true for certain are those things which its impossible to question.
You can question aethism so its foolish to accept it as undeniable fact.

I worry about you too if you are a gambler.
Its not worth it.

And Chis Hedges is a Christian, one who has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.

There aren't things that are impossible to question so I guess we can't know anything for certain.

Who accepts atheism as undeniable fact? Of course that's not even relevant. Even if atheism was silly it still would help you out with the question of what harm homosexuality does spiritually, if there's if anything spiritual at all and what religion has the right guidance.

The state has no business helping anyone realise the spiritual effects of anything. The United States government is purely a temporal construct.

"As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796).

--Jaylemurph

[And just so people can go on to see what it says...

...as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. ]

We are a country of Indians being ruled by the Swedish.

There are some truths like I think therefore I am, but this debate is not about Solipsism its about homosexuality.

I have wrote about why I think homosexuality was againt spirituality in the past and it got me a warning off the moderators so I'm not going to do it again.
I'm going to refraise the question instead. Why do you think I believe its against spirituality?

Its not hate, fear or anything like that. A clue is its a moral issue.

You dont know much about your nation.

The USA is founded on Freemasonary. It also spends its days promoting Freedom, love and peace to its citizens and the rest of the world. These are freemasonary ideals.

Homosexuality is natural in the animal world, and quite frequent I believe. It's about time to face up to modernity. We know now that inherent homosexuality is not a choice, and you should stop being ignorant to these facts.

Especially among felines and bonobos, yes.

I'll wager I know more about it than you. I defy you, for instance, to find any instance of the US government spreading /love/ anywhere*.

There are laws saying they can only teach abstinence.

/rimshot


--Jaylemurph


*Let a lone a piece of documentary evidence to back that claim up.

Ninjadude sez:




Unfortunately, for gay people and for you both, you are both right and both wrong in the various posts you've made.

Ninja - this was a decision made by the California Supreme Court concerning the California State Constitution. The Justices of the Supreme Court of California are certainly not elected. Ten seconds on Google would have told you that.

Also, the court didn't find that the referendum was unconstitutional. They found that the State's differentiating between the classifications domestic partnerships and marriage was unconstitutional. That decision was based entirely on the fact that there are no differences between the rights granted under either classification

Here's part of the court decision:


The above pertains to the sort of scrutiny the court was obliged to apply to the laws in question in this case. But it gives the gist of what I'm trying to tell you about why the court found California's domestic partnership laws to be unconstitutional.

Aroces - laws that contradict a constitution (state or federal) are being passed all the time. The Supreme Court (state or federal) can only get involved in the process if a legitimately injured party files an action concerning such a law.

This was not a "court test." It was a lawsuit.


Have you read the Constitution of the State of California?

The matter before the court was not whether or not gay people had a right to marry. It was whether or not the State of California could grant one set of citizens a certain list of rights and call such a union "marriage," and grant another set of citizens the exact same set of rights and call it a "domestic partnership."

The court found the above situation to be discriminatory.

Everyone needs to remember one thing about courts like this - they are only empowered to act on the decision that is before them.

Under California law the only difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" is the words themselves, IOW the rights granted are exactly the same, and because the Court found the situation concerning the congruency of marriage and domestic partnership to be discriminatory, the Court made the correct decision that defining marriage in the way the referendum did would also be discriminatory.

All that the anti-gay crowd has to do is make a small change in the domestic partnership laws of California and the entire ruling under discussion in this thread will become moot and will hold no bearing on the subject any longer, at least in the State of California.

Ninjadude,

Before you use the term "NEOCON!!!" as a slur, I suggest you read this column from E. J. Dionne (based on your posts I assume you know his work.) In it you will find that thinking conservatives (among whom I count myself) have been behind this gay marriage struggle, not opposed to it.

In fact, the conservative argument for gay marriage is the more sensible one as it is not rooted in garnering votes, nor is it motivated by idiotic political correctness.

Both of you should read the actual decision of the Court before you pontificate further. I suggest everyone should always do this before commencing to whine about this or that decision.

The link to a word .doc format version of the decision is right HERE.

Harte

Precisely my point, from here on then those who ends up loosing a proposition will/can challenge the proposition constitutionally, so why not have the Judges determine that before voting on a law or a proposition., right?


Don't tell me you have.

Let's not protest the intolerant right wing propaganda being spewed here by dragging in a bunch of sanctimonious left wing propaganda.

The California Supreme Court over-ruled the ban because it discriminated against gays. It "impinged upon a fundamental right".

It seems to me that what they're saying here is that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is not necessarily wrong in itself, but that you aren't allowed to define it this way as a back door method of depriving gay people of their fundamental rights. The direction they're probably heading is towards defining "civil union" as equivalent to "marriage" but letting the church keep its term "Marriage".

Blue Zone,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The above is yours.

If you want the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of California, however, I suggest you read what is at the link I provided.

The basis for this decision was not that the referendum "impinged on a fundamental right." The Court may have felt that way, but they did not (and could not) base their opinion on it.

If they had, no small change in the domestic partner laws in California could alter it.

The State of California does not recognize a "fundamental right" of marriage between same-sex couples.

Such a right is only inferred by the fact that a "domestic partnership" between same-sex couples in California is exactly equal (with regard to the rights and privileges granted) to a "marriage" between opposite-sex couples due to the very progressive domestic partnership laws in California.

The basis of the Court's decision was that it is discriminatory for the State of California to call one circumstance a "domestic partnership" and the other a "marriage" when there is no discernable legal difference between the two under California statutes.

It was this that the Court decided was unconstitutional (under the State Constitution,) and thus by inference the referendum itself was also unconstitutional.

I know it's a pretty fine point. But in the law, fine points make a huge difference.

It also illustrates the foolishness of both Aroces and Ninjadude in their ranting back and forth on the subject, since it shows that neither had an argument that would hold any water in this particular case.

IOW, neither had a dog in that race, when they both thought they did.

Harte

Not love as in kissing, cuddles and a grope etc. lol.

Yes, you picked right up on the crux of that little jest. Bully for you.

But I'm still waiting to see an example of the US government peddling love.

--Jaylemurph

I'd prefer not to live under such a Judicial dictatorship myself. As it stands, challenges to laws are thrown out all the time by Justices that find that the claimant has no standing to litigate, IOW, the claimant often cannot show personal harm due to the law in question. Your suggestion would void that particular protection the Justice System has against being completely overwhelmed, and thus paralyzed, by activists with no real legal standing.





Of course not, but I'm not making the argument that you are:

Particularly the part I bolded above.

See, I think it's fairly safe to assume, until evidence to the contrary is presented, that a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of California has made himself somewhat familiar with the Constitution of the State of California, even if by merely having a long association with making rulings based on said document.

Harte

When people talk of love it is such a vague concept it could mean 100 differant things.

Freemasonary love is about brotherhood. It is about going out of your way to help your fellow man. The US has done this many times for example a bag of American grain landing on the doorstep of an Ethiopian.

Just make sure who they are helping doesn't have any oil and everything will be alright.

harte -

a quote from your link -



if that were true , blacks would still be waiting for their rights.

change is never easy in anyones life. from a child moving away from home , the death of a loved one or even overcoming our predjuice and bigotry. the bandaid is better off removed at once and healing can begin rather than drag it out.