265)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
The will of the people be damned then! That democracy thing has always been over-rated anyhow, right? It's the Leftist elite who really know what's best for us. Trust the activist judges who legislate from the bench.
The only collection that is danming the will of the poeple is the Neo-Conservatives and their umbrella organization -- Republicanism.
They claim to be 'Fiscal Conservatives' --- and they bankrupt our nation with the most lavish deficit spendin in American history!!!
Its liek ... you gotta be morally vacant and a bona fide liar to be eligible to vote Republican.
Who woulda thought such a thing could be possible 'pre-Gingrich'?
Out of frustration over the war and the President's inflationary spending, voters are considering the socialism of the Democrats to be a viable alternative. They forget that the Democratic Party has not represented the moral, ethical or religious views of the majority of Americans for a long time. I don't think that President Bush can claim to be a fiscal Conservative by an stretch of the imagination.
"Out of frustration over the war and the President's inflationary spending"
More over fear of a president who sees no limits to his power and breaks the will of the constitution on a daily basis. The fact that he's spent the US into the toilet for generations to come doesn't help much, either.
Judges do not legislate. Their job and they do it very well is to banish laws that violate provisions of the constitution. The so called most activist judge was also in reality the most conservative believing the constitution meant exactly what it said. That was Earl Warren a conservative republican governor before being on the court. The Chief Justice for Row V Wade - Warren Burger another conservative republican. Funny how your kind always equates these true conservatives to being liberal. Not the fact but you do it anyway.
Judges do legislate when they overturn laws established and reinforced by popular votes. Earl Warren was never a Conservative, he just appeared more moderate prior to his appointment and fooled Eisenhower. I would consider Berger a moderate, not a Conservative.
it's the job of judges to tell legislators and the people following their laws, when those laws violate federal or state constitutions.
are you saying you think popular votes trump the constitution???
There's nothing unconstitutional about the legal status of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time.
Are you saying that a popular vote is irrelevant if it doesn't achieve your political goals? I suppose that you feel that violent revolution is a legitimate option if the electorate isn't "enlightened" enough?
"There's nothing unconstitutional about the legal status of marriage..."
While it is true the Constitution says nothing specifically about the right to marriage, rights are assumed, not granted. Therefore the right to consensual same-sex marriage is assumed and any ban thereon is unconstitutional.
No, the state has the right to determine the definition of marriage.
Yep, those devils Jefferson and Madison and Adams and that bunch, saying there is no divine right to govern and that rights of people do not derive from governments but can only be recognized by them, the silly leftists. It ain't all about you and your religious views, Sparky.
Apparently, it ain't about democracy if the Left doesn't get it's way, old fart! I'm the one defending the values of the Founding Fathers.
i don't think you know or understand the values of the "Founding Fathers"...you clearly don't know that they argued vigorously amongst themselves. the only "values" they all agreed upon were delineated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
when a public servant, elected or not...or when a soldier, enlisted or officer, takes their oath of office, they aren't swearing to uphold and defend the american people, the political administration or even our beautiful land. They swear to uphold and defend the constitution...against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
the real patriots in this country respect individual rights guaranteed even to homosexuals, by the constitution.
Then respect the results of the democratic process in states where gay marriage has failed at the ballot box, if you love the Constitution.
But you wouldn't say: "Then respect the results of the democratic process in states where interracial marriage has failed at the ballot box, if you love the Constitution."
Would you?
There hasn't been an election on that, therefore, it is a moot point.
So you won't answer a hypothetical?
It won't happen and you have no point. The fact is that there has been a popular vote on this issue and you deny the electorate's right to choose.
Courts won't rule based on hypothetical issues either.
To which 'values' are you referring? Slavery?
What exactly are 'Family Values' anyway? I always thought it was something like: two loving people committing to each other for life, openly engaging and helping their neighbors, and perhaps raising compassionate and thoughtful children in a caring and responsible manner.