Originally Posted by john w k

Your statement has no meaningful application to the fact that:

(a) the initiative adopted by the people did not impinge upon the inalienable rights of Bob and Frank to strike up a relationship and call it whatever they wish;

Originally Posted by john w k

Your statement has no meaningful application to the fact that:

(a) the initiative adopted by the people did not impinge upon the inalienable rights of Bob and Frank to strike up a relationship and call it whatever they wish;

(b) the initiative adopted by the people set public policy so as to distinguish same sex relationships from marriages of opposite sex.


The Court arrogantly asserting there was no “compelling state interest” in differentiation between same sex “marriage“ and marriages of opposite sex in striking down the public policy adopted by the people via the State’s initiative process, and, after striking down the public policy adopted by the people confirming a distinction between same sex “marriage“ and marriages of opposite sex, the Court went on to impose its own personal whims and fancies as being public policy, and thus, engaged in judicial tyranny by undermining the separation of powers in a Republican Form of Government which is guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.of the United States Constitution!


JWK

Originally Posted by john w k

As to the reference “republican democracy”, a contradiction of terms

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

You seem to be missing the basic point that the right to call yourself something is no right at all if you are denied the legal right to actually be that thing. Mr. and Mrs. Loving could have called themselves husband and wife all they liked, but that didn't make it okay for miscegenation laws to deny them the right to actually be husband and wife.

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

What you call arrogant is, in fact, a rather basic and essential component of constitutional law. A fundamenal right (such as marriage) can only be limited if the government has a compelling interest in doing so, so the court had to decide whether the interest was compelling. It's a rather basic legal analysis found in all constitutional law cases involving a fundamental right.

The fact that you disagree with them about whether it was a fundamental right doesn't make them arrogant for making that basic legal analysis.

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

It's not a contradiction in terms, it's the form of government that we have. . ..

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

That's all rather academic though.

What's interesting is that what you said the Founders were opposed to is exactly what the California voters did in this case!

Originally Posted by john w k

johnwk wrote:

As to the reference “republican democracy”, a contradiction of terms, let is not forget what Madison says in Federalist Paper No. 10 when talking about “democracy and emphatically states: “ that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide."

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

Originally Posted by john w k

johnwk wrote:




Really? Perhaps you ought to read what our Constitution states in clear language in Art. 4., Sec. 4. And then re-read what I posted in THIS POST




I agree! The initiative process, “democracy”, especially when directed against the inalienable rights of people, such as rights associated with property ownership [smoking bans imposed upon privately owned businesses], or directed against Bob and Frank forbidding them from striking up a relationship and calling it a marriage, is a direct assault upon our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Sect. 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

BTW, it’s important to understand the history behind voter initiative, because its history zero’s in on what voter initiative is all about.

This voter initiative thing began back in the late 1800’s in South Dakota and was promoted in a newspaper [the Dakota Ruralist] by its publisher, Walter Kidd, who promoted on his paper’s front page "Socialism in Our Time.”

Kidd also was very active in the Populist Party which gave us the socialist “income tax”, a wealth based tax which was struck down by the SCOTUS as violating our Constitution’s fair share formula which requires a wealth based tax to be apportioned among the states based upon each state’s number of votes in Congress.

The intention of our founding fathers requiring a wealth based tax to be apportioned among the states was intended to guarantee those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution___ a proportionate vote equal to their contribution to be exercised when Congress Assembled determines how their money is spent!


Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the inalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of inalienable rights.

Whether the Court takes at slap at our Republican Form of Government as the California Court has recently done, or it is a majority of the people who undermine our Republican Form of Government, it is a subjugation of the very form of government which the people intentionally adopted when ratifying the Constitution of the United States.

JWK

Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, [of government] it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. ___ Federalist 78

Originally Posted by john w k

And let us not forget what the California Second District Court of Appeals recently held, that the fundamental due process right to marry does not impermissibly discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, does not violate the right or privacy or free expression, and furthers legitimate state interests. Based on those holdings, the Court of Appeals held that marriage statutes which define marriage as the union between on man and one women do not violate equal protection See: In re Coordination Proceeding, Marriage Cases (Cal. Superior 2005) 2005 WL 583129. And, this decision was based upon countless court rulings which confirm the state does have a compelling interest in advancing the traditional marriage of one male and one female.

Originally Posted by john w k

The "fact" is, 150 years of established public policy and countless court decisions is what the disagreement is about, and not what I say.