Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (47056)	6/28/2013 11:33:44 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

I don't see it that way. Democracy should face constitutional limits, and they do involve judicial review in our system, but that doesn't mean any exercise of judicial review against what passes through the democratic process is automatically supportive of the principles of the constitution. In this case it was (at least initially) about the constitution of California (a subject I have a lot less knowledge about then the US federal constitution). I don't know enough about CA's constitution to know if the initial law was really unconstitutional or not. If it was, then it was appropriate for CA's courts to strike it down. Assuming the law did violate CA's constitution then striking it down would be an example of what you where talking about "Score 1 for Constitutional Republic 0 for Democracy" (even if I would be unlikely to put it in those terms). But how does striking down the CA constitutional amendment, and then denying standing fit in that framework?