See this poll on: https://poll.fm/8427629/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Think about this people who want mob rule (i.e. Rule by the people). What if the popular vote banned all gun ownership?
While you are correct that we are supposed to have a system of checks and balances between the legislative, judicial and executive branches of our government, in fact we no longer have a functioning system. With SOTUS "justices" appointed for life (think dementia or serious illness and refusing to step down-it has happened more than once in the past), a Congress that doesn't know what their job entails and refuses to rein in an Executive branch that has repeatedly overstepped the Constitutional bounds of that office and seeks to run the country "his" way and the people be damned, it seems that we have less a POTUS and more a soft dictator or a monarch wannabe. Anyway you cut it, the will of the people is being ignored and that cannot continue indefinitely.
The reason that there is a checks-and-balances relationship between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) is precisely so that if "the people" (or their representatives) create a law that violates existing Constitutional law, that law is deemed unconstitutional and cannot be upheld - no matter what "the people" say or believe.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) wrote inequality into federal law and violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection of equal liberty. It denied benefits to one group while allowing those benefits for another group.
"Jim Crow" laws had the support of a significant portion of the US population for many, many years (in some places, they still *have* that support). But those kinds of laws violate the same portion of the US constitution, and as such cannot legally be enforced - no matter how many people think they *should* be enforced.
So the judiciary is not creating law - they are enforcing existing law. Ironically, by including the specific denial of rights in DOMA, the people who drafted it ensured that it would be overturned, eventually.
It should also be noted that the ruling permits the granting of licenses for *civil* marriage - it does not require religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. No one can force a religious community to perform these marriages.
"it is supposed to be rule by the people "
No, it's not, dink - we have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. BIG difference between the two, which you would know if you had bothered to stay awake in your 9th grade Civics class.
It never ceases to amaze me how few people actually know America's founding principles, considering that we all had to pass a Constitution test to graduate high school.
Steve, Dennis
So in Alabama the voters decided to leave the Jim Crow laws on the books to racially segregate schools, thankfully the Supreme court (thanks to Brown v Board of Education) makes that illegal, but it is still preserved in the state's constitution, so by your definition, you believe that since the majority of "the people" still want segregated schools, then that should be the law there? Please explain the difference here if you don't want segregated schools, but you do want to prevent consenting adults to marry, or do you want each state to decide whether or not to segregate schools by letting "the people" decide that?
I'm with Dennis, I think if the majority of "the people""vote for something, that's the law.
setting aside the argument about homosexuality it is supposed to be rule by the people and for the people. Federal Judges or even state judges should not be allowed to create their own laws. We are slowly being put into a dictatorship from the legislative branch.