Author Topic: Should 1 person have the power to overturn the will of 3 million voters?  (Read 231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,187
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

Should 1 Person have the Power to Overturn the Will of 3 Million Voters?


Posted on April 16, 2014 by Dave Jolly Filed under Constitution, Ethics, Homosexuality, Law, Liberalism, Politics, State Laws

5 Comments   

   

Share23 Tweet14 Share58 Email1

When our Founding Fathers established our nation, they purposely divided the power and responsibilities into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.  Of the three branches, the judicial was supposed to be the branch with the most limited powers.  Our Founding Fathers never intended for judges to have the authority or power to overturn the will of the people.  They felt the people should have the say, not judges, not the president and not even Congress.  That’s why they started the US Constitution with the words ‘We the people of the United States.’  If they saw America today, they would wonder what happened to the country and government they created.

Years ago, the people of California and Arizona voted to make English the official language.  Hispanic minorities complained and took their whining to the courts.  In both states, the will of the people was overturned by one or three liberal judges who felt they had more power than the people.

 


This week, I saw the same thing happen just north of me in Ohio.  In 2004, Ohio voters passed a state constitutional amendment, Ohio State Issue 1 that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions.  The measure passed with 62% of the vote.

Naturally gay activists have been upset because the majority of Ohio citizens still believe that homosexuality is a sin as described in the Bible and should not be allowed.  They’ve been trying to challenge the constitutional amendment and will of the majority ever since.

Four gay couples in Ohio went to other states to be legally married and are now expecting children.  They want the right to list both names on the children’s birth certificates, but the Ohio Amendment does not allow the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.  Without the legal recognition, the state only allows the names of the biological parents to be listed on the birth certificates.

The couples took their case to federal court and one liberal judge, Timothy Black, decided that the will of the people means nothing.  He just ruled that the state of Ohio must recognize the same-sex marriages from other states thus allowing the names of both members of the couple to be appear on the birth certificates.

Phil Burgess, President of Citizens for Community Values, was responsible for the effort that led to the passage of the amendment.  He has accused Black of legislating from the bench and commented about the judge’s ruling, saying:

 



"He's one judge striking down the will of 3 million voters. Wait until we get to the Sixth Circuit. Then we'll take this case more seriously. He's an activist judge and he loves the limelight."

Burgess said that his organization conducted a voter poll that revealed that 56% of the voters are still against legalizing same-sex marriage.  He believes that the reason gay activists took their agenda to the courts is that they knew that they could never get enough votes to repeal the amendment.  He commented:

"They're bullies. They're pushing people around and people are getting fed up. They made it sound like it's all about same sex marriage, two people wanting to get married. They don't realize that in Massachusetts for example, when same sex marriage was legalized it was in the public schools in first grade the next year, talking about same sex marriage and homosexuality as being normal,"

The State of Ohio is appealing Judge Black’s ruling.  Knowing the appeal was coming, Black has stayed his own ruling, and has asked both sides to respond in writing before deciding if his stay will remain in effect throughout the appeal process or not.

 

So back to my question as to whether one man or woman should have the power to overrule the will of the voters?  America was established as a republic, not a democracy.  In a republic, the people rule and have the say.  In a democracy, the people elect those they want to dictate over them.  American is no longer a republic and the will of people no longer rules.

That means any judge or panel of judges can rule on their own personal agendas instead of on the Constitution, the laws of the land and the will of people.  Even if 100% of the voters approved of any issue such as banning same-sex marriage or making English the one and only official language, all of their votes could be nullified by a single liberal judge.  That should never be allowed to happen!

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15198/1-person-power-overturn-will-3-million-voters/#epgu0b0oXwpAJroX.99
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,477
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Sometimes the answer is yes.  Suppose 62% of Ohioans voted to outlaw the republican party; should the 1 person with the power to undo that act, or not?

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,187
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Sometimes the answer is yes.  Suppose 62% of Ohioans voted to outlaw the republican party; should the 1 person with the power to undo that act, or not?

I seriously doubt the courts would find anything wrong with outlawing the republican party if it were the will of the people;  but not so likely if it were to vote the democratic party out of the state.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,406
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
The confederate states, and the Southern Baptist church for a time, favored slavery, then segregation and discrimination.

Courts opposed such "majority opinions" etc. Justifiably, in my view of the nation's history, intent of the founders, etc.

Like it or not, homosexuality is being defined as equal to a racial minority, a religious minority, a physical disability, etc. and given similar protection.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
"Four gay couples in Ohio went to other states to be legally married and are now expecting children."

That one really had me for a second.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
That's a way oversimplification of the way our country works. Judges are not gods; they are either appointed by elected officials or elected themselves. So the voters have control over who gets to be a judge. And in case a rogue judge does get office, there are ways to impeach or otherwise remove a judge from office. And then there are appeals courts - several levels of them, all the way the the US Supreme Court.
This Judge Black recognizes the appeal process, and he stayed his ruling to let that process work through. I don't agree with his opinion in this case, but I do agree that the appeals process is the way to resolve the case. I would have wanted that option even if he decided the other way.
We are fortunate that our founding fathers put so many checks and balances in our system. We've been saved many times because of that.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,477
  • #NeverTrumpForever
That's a way oversimplification of the way our country works. Judges are not gods; they are either appointed by elected officials or elected themselves. So the voters have control over who gets to be a judge. And in case a rogue judge does get office, there are ways to impeach or otherwise remove a judge from office. And then there are appeals courts - several levels of them, all the way the the US Supreme Court.
This Judge Black recognizes the appeal process, and he stayed his ruling to let that process work through. I don't agree with his opinion in this case, but I do agree that the appeals process is the way to resolve the case. I would have wanted that option even if he decided the other way.
We are fortunate that our founding fathers put so many checks and balances in our system. We've been saved many times because of that.

very well put!


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf