"inherent conflict between Democracy and rights given under the Constitution."
The reason people don't "get it" is because the court is making laws based on fallacious interpretations of the Constitution and thus frustrating the will of the people. Yes we are a constitutional republic and the Constitution does impose limits on the majority, but the drivel coming the courts is ludicrous. Instead of being the protector of the Constitution, which is the role the founders envision, and I submit the appropriate role in a democracy where federal judges are appointed for life, the Courts have become a super legislature imposing their view of the good, the true and the beautiful upon the populace against the overwhelming will of the majority.
The effect of this is that people believe that their vote doesn't matter and you can't beat the system. That powerful politicians are gaming the system, etc.
We have even had instances where Courts have overruled Constitutional amendments and laws passed by States.
My question to you, Ken, is where would you place a limit and say the Courts have overstepped their bounds. Will it take a new court that decides that all children have a right to life and abortions are illegal?
On the other hand the court had no trouble limiting political free speech. (McCain-Feingold. Virtually declaring that White males are second class citizens, legislating the death penalty, which is permitted under the constitution and no business of the Court, etc.
My point is that they legislate and since they are not subject to control by the voters, the Court is a dictatorship, not a protector of the Constitution.
Little joe |
