Voters Right to Decided VS. Freedoms

Published on January 5, 2006 By ----- In US Domestic

One thing that i have been thinking about it the fact that, despite voters having the right to declare (through there vote) a certain thing to be right or wrong. An example would be the State of Oregons measure 36, which the voters of Oregon voted (as to define marriage as a man and a women/ ban same sex marriage) and passed with a finally tally of 57% to 43%. Now, months later, this was found to be unconstitutional as it limited a persons rights, despite the voters voice in a 57-43 passing of it.

My question is: How can we (the voters) make our voices heard, when a judge can just declare what the voters voted for (or against) to be unconstitutional. Our right to vote for what we want hinges on whether or not a judge will declare our choice to be unconstitutional.

Comments

davad70

on Jan 05, 2006

So are you saying that it really isn't unconstituational or that if the people decide it then it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional?

-----

on Jan 05, 2006

I'm saying, why bother. If activist judges are going to over turn it. We might as well turn the power we have to them. Let them rule. I mean, the voters decided...yet... that didn't matter.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 05, 2006

Judges aren't above the law, nor are their decisions final. However, they are part of the checks and balances between We the People, the State and Federal Government.

The question of defining marriage will ultimately require a Constitutional Amendment. While it's true that Marriage licenses are issued by the state, and marriages are officiated at the county level, there is still the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The votes, debates and laws defining marriage at the local level are trumped by the fact that any legal marriage performed anywhere within the U.S. must be recognized by all other states.

Until recently, marriage was pretty much defined by tradition. Few (if any) seriously challenged the concept that marriage is between a man and a woman, so most state laws were written with that fact taken for granted. Well, it's now being challenged and, with the U.S Constitution in mind, it is out of the hands of the local and state level. Until Congress and the States get serious about the issue, local leaders, judges and we, the people, will continue to tread water in arguments based solely on our own opinions in the matter.

I'd love to denounce this judge as just another "activist judge", but unless someone can come up with a compelling argument about how this law wouldn't violate Article 1, Sec 4 of the U.S. Constitution, I'd have to agree with the ruling... even if I don't like the outcome.

stutefish

on Jan 06, 2006

Indeed.

We can always vote to change the Constitution, if we're serious enough. It takes a lot of hard work, a lot of debate, a lot of commitment, and a national consensus to do that, though.

If we're not serious enough about it, that's when the judge gets to step in and slap down attempts by minority factions to impose their values on everybody in the country.

So it's not like judges get to just override the will of the people willy-nilly. They only get to override the will of the people when the people aren't serious enough, and can't get enough support for, their newly-changed values.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!