SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: koan who wrote (47089)6/28/2013 12:21:11 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
I wasn't talking about the issue of same sex marriage. I don't care to argue it. The issue is how is the constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Generally declaring such would be illegitimate and undemocratic.

There are exceptions to the "illegitimate part" (for example the part of the US federal constitution that allows for amendments explicitly excludes amendments that don't give each state equal representation in the senate), but no one that I've seen has explained, or even tried to explain, how this is one of those cases.

It seems to me that is a matter of a judge saying "this is the policy I want, so I'm going to force it through" without any concern over actual constitutional provisions and limitations. That's both anti-democracy and anti rule of law. Its not "rule by the people", or "rule of law", its "rule of the judges".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News