The Constitution: WHY votes don't count.
I read a lot of opinion pieces in newspapers, and spend a fair amount of time looking for similar stuff online. I quite enjoy knowing other opinions on things. And every now and again, I'll come across a picture I find quite interesting. Today, I came across a picture of a man in California, apparently quite upset, holding a sign that read "California: Where votes don't count." I haven't been able to find the picture online, but it is in the CT Post, I believe. Possibly the New Haven Register. Either way, it exists.
I did not find the picture interesting because I was curious as to how votes could be rendered ineffectual. I did not find the picture interesting because the man was himself an interesting looking person or that I believed his idea had merit. I found the picture interesting because I was curious as to how he believed his sign was in any way, shape, or form, the correct idea. To be fair, it is true that the votes to ban same-sex marriage in the state of California did ban it for a time, and then the ban was declared unconstitutional. His vote, if he voted, was indeed nullified.
I have read other articles, seen news presentations, etc, where the ruling of Prop 8 as unconstitutional was described as either the result of an "activist judge" or just another example of Big Government takeover, and sometimes even perversion, of marriage. I am curious as to why they think this is out of place, or indeed, in this instance something over which to be outraged.
The United States Government, both State and Federal, is separated into three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive Branch includes the Office of the President of the United States. It is, in accordance with the name "executive" meant to ensure that laws are executed, followed, and maintained. The Legislative Branch includes the Houses of Congress, which serves primarily to create the laws that the Executive branch must ensure are followed. The Judicial branch tests the laws, among other things, for whether or not they are in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land and the document against with which all laws must comply. Laws that do not are deemed unconstitutional and are usually rendered void.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States includes a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause. They are as follows, along with the first part of the Amendment which guarantees citizenship for those born or naturalized in the United States. The citizenship part is not of terrible important for this post:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In two cases that I know of, marriage was ruled as a fundamental right, and held as such. Those two cases are Zablocki v. Redhail - 1978 and Turner v. Safley - 1987. In Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, it was ruled the no state was allowed to ban the use of contraceptives as it violated the right to marital privacy. Griswold was a stepping stone in reaching the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, where a ban on sodomy was ruled unconstitutional. Adults, then, had a right to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. In accordance with the 14th Amendment, then, States shall not make any law which deprives citizens of their right to marriage, nor their right to take part in private, consensual sexual conduct, nor violate the privacy of a marriage union.
I am curious, now, why it was believed a ban on same-sex marriages would last forever. It is the purpose of the Judicial Branch, as I said, to test the laws, which are themselves created by the Legislative Branch and voted into reality, either by some form of Congress or by the people themselves. The Judicial Branch is meant, by that process of review, to protect the rights of minority groups from being voted away by majority groups. As marriage was declared and held as a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail, it is a right that the minority must receive as well as the minority as long as they are citizens of the United States according to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment. It was the purpose of the Judicial branch to review Proposition 8, and when it was deemed unconstitutional, to render it invalid.
This is not an "activist judge" running rampant with personal freedoms and administering his own form of justice. This was not a hostile takeover of lives by Big Government. This was the government doing something right, doing something it was meant to do and something it has done since its earliest days. This was the government working as it should.
You'd think people would be happier about that.
I did not find the picture interesting because I was curious as to how votes could be rendered ineffectual. I did not find the picture interesting because the man was himself an interesting looking person or that I believed his idea had merit. I found the picture interesting because I was curious as to how he believed his sign was in any way, shape, or form, the correct idea. To be fair, it is true that the votes to ban same-sex marriage in the state of California did ban it for a time, and then the ban was declared unconstitutional. His vote, if he voted, was indeed nullified.
I have read other articles, seen news presentations, etc, where the ruling of Prop 8 as unconstitutional was described as either the result of an "activist judge" or just another example of Big Government takeover, and sometimes even perversion, of marriage. I am curious as to why they think this is out of place, or indeed, in this instance something over which to be outraged.
The United States Government, both State and Federal, is separated into three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive Branch includes the Office of the President of the United States. It is, in accordance with the name "executive" meant to ensure that laws are executed, followed, and maintained. The Legislative Branch includes the Houses of Congress, which serves primarily to create the laws that the Executive branch must ensure are followed. The Judicial branch tests the laws, among other things, for whether or not they are in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land and the document against with which all laws must comply. Laws that do not are deemed unconstitutional and are usually rendered void.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States includes a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause. They are as follows, along with the first part of the Amendment which guarantees citizenship for those born or naturalized in the United States. The citizenship part is not of terrible important for this post:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In two cases that I know of, marriage was ruled as a fundamental right, and held as such. Those two cases are Zablocki v. Redhail - 1978 and Turner v. Safley - 1987. In Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, it was ruled the no state was allowed to ban the use of contraceptives as it violated the right to marital privacy. Griswold was a stepping stone in reaching the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, where a ban on sodomy was ruled unconstitutional. Adults, then, had a right to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. In accordance with the 14th Amendment, then, States shall not make any law which deprives citizens of their right to marriage, nor their right to take part in private, consensual sexual conduct, nor violate the privacy of a marriage union.
I am curious, now, why it was believed a ban on same-sex marriages would last forever. It is the purpose of the Judicial Branch, as I said, to test the laws, which are themselves created by the Legislative Branch and voted into reality, either by some form of Congress or by the people themselves. The Judicial Branch is meant, by that process of review, to protect the rights of minority groups from being voted away by majority groups. As marriage was declared and held as a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail, it is a right that the minority must receive as well as the minority as long as they are citizens of the United States according to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment. It was the purpose of the Judicial branch to review Proposition 8, and when it was deemed unconstitutional, to render it invalid.
This is not an "activist judge" running rampant with personal freedoms and administering his own form of justice. This was not a hostile takeover of lives by Big Government. This was the government doing something right, doing something it was meant to do and something it has done since its earliest days. This was the government working as it should.
You'd think people would be happier about that.