Democracy Failed
Looking for opinions since nothing seems to be true anymore.
Proposition 8 in California. My understanding is that is was an amendment to the Californian Constitution that was voted in by the citizens of California. Therefore, per the Californian constitution, it is now a legal part per the processes established when California was made a state.
Recently, the supreme court of California overturned Prop. 8 deeming it unconstitutional. Hence the purpose of the supreme court, to determine the constitutionality of each law that is passed. But if Prop 8 is now part of the constitution, how is it unconstitutional? The system failed itself. The constitution is a contract between the people of California and the people who rule over California. No legislative power rest with the court. The Court checks and balances the legislative and executive branches to maintain that each law that is passed is in accordance to the constitution and all other laws that have been passed prior to.
Now since the constitution represents the people, and the people chose to modify it in a pure Democratic vote, meaning the majority of the people chose to accept the change to the constitution, the supreme court has an obligation to uphold it. Yet, they did not. So the system is broken. I personally believe that the supreme court, according to the processes is broken.
But that isn't to say that the process isn't broken and that it hasn't been broken from the start. Lets say that it isn't about the rights of certain individuals. Its purely a constitutional definition of the word Marriage. The Courts are in the wrong since they didn't not uphold the wish of the majority. The minority yelled enough and the supreme court either didn't have the stones to uphold it or justice isn't blind and they decided according to their desires. Either way the Constitution, we the people, are not holding them responsible.
Let say that man/women have the right to marry man/women in any combination. The constitution was amended to be unjust. Hence the fundamental problem with democracy. The will of the majority can overrule the will of the minority. In a world where no one accepts an objective truth but must tolerant to everyone else's truths regardless of if they are true or not, who is the one to be judge of what is true?
This is why I feel all of you who supported the overruling of prop. 8 are wrong. In a pure statistical approach, the only way you can determine an accurate confidence interval is to have a sizable population. In the supreme court, you have a sample of 7 people. In the popular vote, you have a sample of 17M people. Therefor in a popular vote is more accurate of the 37M person population. 7 people represent roughly .0000186% of the population as opposed to 46%. Now the math is mostly correct, I might have missed a few 0s or added extra in the percentage, but the idea is still accurate.
Arguments against my logic:
We are a republic not a democracy. Fair point. But if that is the case the republic no longer represents the people.
The supreme court is better educated than the populous. Yes, they are more educated than the average citizen. That would skew the data but in each group of people for and against there is most likely enough educated people on either side to balance it out along with enough idiots to balance out the idiots on the other side.
Now since this is slanted against the overruling, the guess is that I was for prop 8. Yes, I believe that the objective truth of marriage is between a man and a woman and it is from death till us part. Now the most I have spoken out against the ruling is in the above words. I will be up in arms against it if the next step is to force the church to allow homosexual marriage. I will write two blogs... If that is the next step, then we have the same issue that our forefathers had with Great Britain. Separation of church and state works to protect both ways.
All opinions are welcome.
Proposition 8 in California. My understanding is that is was an amendment to the Californian Constitution that was voted in by the citizens of California. Therefore, per the Californian constitution, it is now a legal part per the processes established when California was made a state.
Recently, the supreme court of California overturned Prop. 8 deeming it unconstitutional. Hence the purpose of the supreme court, to determine the constitutionality of each law that is passed. But if Prop 8 is now part of the constitution, how is it unconstitutional? The system failed itself. The constitution is a contract between the people of California and the people who rule over California. No legislative power rest with the court. The Court checks and balances the legislative and executive branches to maintain that each law that is passed is in accordance to the constitution and all other laws that have been passed prior to.
Now since the constitution represents the people, and the people chose to modify it in a pure Democratic vote, meaning the majority of the people chose to accept the change to the constitution, the supreme court has an obligation to uphold it. Yet, they did not. So the system is broken. I personally believe that the supreme court, according to the processes is broken.
But that isn't to say that the process isn't broken and that it hasn't been broken from the start. Lets say that it isn't about the rights of certain individuals. Its purely a constitutional definition of the word Marriage. The Courts are in the wrong since they didn't not uphold the wish of the majority. The minority yelled enough and the supreme court either didn't have the stones to uphold it or justice isn't blind and they decided according to their desires. Either way the Constitution, we the people, are not holding them responsible.
Let say that man/women have the right to marry man/women in any combination. The constitution was amended to be unjust. Hence the fundamental problem with democracy. The will of the majority can overrule the will of the minority. In a world where no one accepts an objective truth but must tolerant to everyone else's truths regardless of if they are true or not, who is the one to be judge of what is true?
This is why I feel all of you who supported the overruling of prop. 8 are wrong. In a pure statistical approach, the only way you can determine an accurate confidence interval is to have a sizable population. In the supreme court, you have a sample of 7 people. In the popular vote, you have a sample of 17M people. Therefor in a popular vote is more accurate of the 37M person population. 7 people represent roughly .0000186% of the population as opposed to 46%. Now the math is mostly correct, I might have missed a few 0s or added extra in the percentage, but the idea is still accurate.
Arguments against my logic:
We are a republic not a democracy. Fair point. But if that is the case the republic no longer represents the people.
The supreme court is better educated than the populous. Yes, they are more educated than the average citizen. That would skew the data but in each group of people for and against there is most likely enough educated people on either side to balance it out along with enough idiots to balance out the idiots on the other side.
Now since this is slanted against the overruling, the guess is that I was for prop 8. Yes, I believe that the objective truth of marriage is between a man and a woman and it is from death till us part. Now the most I have spoken out against the ruling is in the above words. I will be up in arms against it if the next step is to force the church to allow homosexual marriage. I will write two blogs... If that is the next step, then we have the same issue that our forefathers had with Great Britain. Separation of church and state works to protect both ways.
All opinions are welcome.