Prop 8 on trial? How it was already voted on?
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
January 11, 2010 11:14am CST
I have a question for all of you on this one. Prop 8 was put up for a vote to the poeple of california. THe people voted to approve prop 8. Now it being taken to court to override the will of the voters. Is this even possible? Can a court of law override the will of the voting public in that state to decide a political matter? If so then what is the point of allowing people to vote on anything....why not just let the judges decide everything for us? If voting means nothing and can be overridden than why bother voting? Wouldn't that be a dictatorship by the court system? While I may not personally agree with the outcome of the vote on prop 8 made by the citizens of California... I do REPECT the right of the people of a state to vote on a bill or resolution, amendment etc... and the outcome to be not only honored but respect and binding.
What are your thoughts on this? Should a court of law be able to even hear a court case which is asking them to override the will of the voting public on a bill or motion on a ballot?
Tell me what you think.
3 people like this
7 responses
@grammasnook (1871)
• United States
13 Jan 10
I am going to jump out on the limb just a little bit here, because I read your discussion, sat and thought about it. I believe it is a legal matter and for the courts to actually decide. Why? This is my thoughts and how I am thinking right now. It falls in the guidelines of HUMAN RIGHTS. Was it the peoples vote to make it alright for biracial couples to marry or was it the courts? It was put in the hands of the courts. This is something that I believe should never had been voted by the people. This is a challenge on whether human rights are being violated.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
15 Jan 10
I agree annie. I think it is completely wrong that everyone does have the same rights as everyone else.
BUT...taking this to court now ALSO makes it a voters rights issue. Does a court of law have a right to over rule the will of the people? What does the outcome of a vote really stand for and how binding is it?
This court case will decide alot more than just equal rights. It will also decide how binding the will of the people is and much it is respected. I may not like how they voted...but it was voted on.
I don't like that Obama was voted into office. I disagree with it. But I respect how the vote turned out. I respect the will of the american public...even if I don't like it. Even if I disagree with it. Even if I feel it is wrong.
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
12 Jan 10
If the premise of the bill in question can be adequately shown to violate the federal constitution, then yes, it should be overridden regardless of the will of the voters. In a constitutional republic such as ours, the will of the voters amounts to nothing if a lesser law violates our highest laws. For example, say a bill passes in a state which forces school children to check their religion at the door - no prayer, no crosses, no anything. The people voted for it, and it passed. A case could then be made by citizens of the state to override said law by showing that it violates the U.S. constitution. Such a system provides protection from mob rule.
That said, it is on the premise of constitutionality alone that any bill should be challenged in court, not whether it is bigoted or "unfair".
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
12 Jan 10
hummmph! Look what happens when the system of checks and balances gets out of balance! (Is usurped.)
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
12 Jan 10
yep. Now that it has been voted on it should be in a court of law.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
13 Jan 10
The easy way around this is that marriage should not be decided by a ballot, a court room, or a legislation assembly, government or public opinion has no place in marriage. Now onto your discussion. How does a politician win election, for the most part receives the most votes. How does a ballot initiative become law, by receiving the most votes. If a court can over rule a ballot vote then the same thing can be said if a court was to over rule an election vote.
@grammasnook (1871)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Well technically they can if there is evidence that something is done against the law. Same way now people trying to prove Obama is not eligible to be president. If Human Rights are being violated do you really see a difference ?
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
14 Jan 10
I do a difference.
THe point is....this is not just a bill that was voted on and then made a law...yes then the courts could decide it.
Prop 8 was an amendment to the state's constitution. That can not be done in a court of law. If so the women's sufferage could have gone to court to get the right to vote....but they couldn't becuase it involved changing the constitution. THey had to get it voted on and passed.
I dont' agree with prop 8. I think they should have the same rights as everyone else. But I don't like to see illegal things done to fix a wrong. Fix it...but do it the right way.
Now if they think there was voter fraud or the count was wrong...so the poeple who put prop 8 on the ballot did not follow proper procedure...then they have a court case.
But as it stands...it was put on a ballot...the public voted on it...and only the same public can decide to change it. It is now part of the state constitution. There are processes in place to be able to change it. A court of law is not it. And by the nature of it being in the state constitution makes it "constitutional". I know that sounds weird but it is legally true.
as for the case against Obama...they are saying he is not "qualified" for the job according to the guidelines in the constitution of this country. So yes... they can take him to court and make him show he is "qualified". BUt they can't go to a court of law and ask them to change the constitution in ANY WAY. Only COngress can do that. That court case is not about "changing" the constitution...it is about upholding it....not that I think they are right either. I think they are wasting time and money. But that is another arguement.
A court of law CAN NOT CHANGE the constitution.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
13 Jan 10
exactly. IF they can overturn this vote....than they can overturn ANY VOTE. The court system should not touch this one with a ten foot pole.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Jan 10
I believe they're taking it to court based on the equal protection clause. Those who are initiating the case, who happen to be the lead attorneys from the famous "Bush V Gore" case on the same side this time, are saying Prop 8 is unconstitutional. My personal opinion is that this should never have gone up for a vote to begin with. What business is it of anybody who someone else marries? I KNOW many here disagree with me and will likely tell me WHY I'm so wrong but it's MY opinion and I'mnot likely to change it!
Annie
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
11 Jan 10
I don't like prop 8. I did not support it. But it was brought up for a vote. The public did decide it. Therefore the court should not be able to override it.
If they wanted to take it to court....than it should have NEVER been put on the ballot. But sense it has been put on the ballot and voted on..I don't think a court should be able to touch it.
It was stupid to put it on the ballot. Now they have to live with it that mistake.
@grammasnook (1871)
• United States
13 Jan 10
Annie like you I also believe it should not have gone before the people. This is a matter of Human rights and that is that. They are humans and their rights are being violated. So many people sit and scream about our freedoms, is it really freedom when you have to ask for permission to marry someone? It isn't like they are asking to marry another species. They are asking to marry another human therefore Human rights are being violated.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
3 Feb 10
A lot of people have to "ask" permission to get married. To get a marriage license issued by the state governmetn you have to fill out the forms and in some states have a blood test.
It is a state issue...they issue the marriage license.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
12 Jan 10
If the premise of the bill in question can be adequately shown to violate the federal constitution, then yes, it should be overridden regardless of the will of the voters. In a constitutional republic such as ours, the will of the voters amounts to nothing if a lesser law violates our highest laws. For example, say a bill passes in a state which forces school children to check their religion at the door - no prayer, no crosses, no anything. The people voted for it, and it passed. A case could then be made by citizens of the state to override said law by showing that it violates the U.S. constitution. Such a system provides protection from mob rule.
That said, it is on the premise of constitutionality alone that any bill should be challenged in court, not whether it is bigoted or "unfair".
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
11 Jan 10
Sadly this happens a lot. Judges at the state and federal level love to make laws and enjoy enormous, albeit unconstitutional power in creating and destroying laws. In my opinion Roe v Wade was the biggest example since there was nothing in the constitution that said ANYTHING about abortion and the decision should have been entirely up to the states.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
11 Jan 10
I don't like judges who legislate from the bench. If they want to make laws run for the house or congress. IF you want to enforce existing laws....become a judge.
