After the reversal of proposition 8 by a sort out does the bill of rights inevitability to be put to a vote?

now then one is intrigued to swot that 7million califorians who voted about prop 8 have have the entire thing up ended by a style guru who deemed in be against the constitution. hmm so what was the point in asking them to vote on an issue within the first place?
Answers:
The point is that in California, amendments can be added and voted on by popular vote. However, that does not miserable that the amendment is constitutional, which is what the judge was decide on.

Of course, there's those 6.5 million other people who voted against it.
Presumably the ancestors who wrote the bill had thought, or at least hoped, that it would not be unconstitutional. Most of the those who voted had no idea one route or the other.

If it had been put to a peacemaker before the vote, then near would have been no point contained by voting, but judges can only want "cases and controversies". Before the vote, there was no armour to be decided, so you pass the unconstitutional canon (if you so choose) and then wait to see if it get overruled. That's the way it always works.

Judges contained by the US have no advisory capacity. The advisory dimensions of judges was discussed at length contained by the Constitutional Convention. It was ultimately decided that it be better to keep those responsible for adjudicating the decree entirely out of the process of writing it. Perhaps it would be wise to have some sort of arms-length procedure where on earth the judiciary could answer only the question of whether or not a statute proposed is constitutional. But I'm not in the order of to make any such proposals, they would be fraught with tremendous complications and implication.

EDIT: It should be noted that people will occasionally take political appointments that they know violate the Constitution, expecting to lose the case in Court, for the purpose of scoring political points by merely putting up the brawl and forcing their political enemies to fight hindmost, if they feel their position, even if unconstitutional, is politically popular.
You're right - this never should have made it onto the ballot.
Your question comes from the point of landscape that State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution are of EQUAL legal authority.

They are not.

For the same aim the Federal government had to desegregate the South through threat of force because the PEOPLE of the Southern states refuse to recognize that black folks had the SAME rights underneath the Federal Constitution... it appears that the people of California tried to codify a LAW that denies EQUALITY to a group of people.... near no logical reason for doing so....

The end result is like peas in a pod... the Federal government basically say this, "You are citizen of the state in which you reside AND a citizen of the United States. Your rights as a citizen of the United States MAY NOT be impinged simply because you are also citizen of one state a bit than another."

If you are gay in Iowa or Massachusetts you have adjectives the same rights as anyone else in those states.... not so within California.

It doesn't matter (in some cases) what "the people want" if what they want is to DUMP ON an entire minority population.

Are you suggesting that California could also REVOKE the First Amendment free speech rights of JUST homosexuals in the State of California?? Are you suggesting that VOTING on something somehow purifies it even though it is obviously wrong?
Just because people vote for something does not construct it Constitutional.

You can get ANYTHING put on the ballot with adequate signatures, that does not mean it's constitutional.
There is a little entry called "legal standing". You can't sue anyone until you hold legal standing to do so - that means that the regulation has to personally affect you contained by some way. This means that USUALLY nobody can sue until the proposition pass and takes affect.
California has something call the "initiative process" whereby ordinary citizens with satisfactory signatures and a $200 submission fee can place something on the ballot for popular vote. the only item the state does is to verify those signatures are valid. the value of the initiative is hardly vet. 7million voters voted yes on prop 8. 6.4 million voters voted no on prop 8. even if the difference was 1 vote, the initiative would have passed.

law are always being challenge. interpretation of law can vary. but the courts singular deal with moving laws in paperwork. courts can not judge the potential constitutionality of a law IF it pass. it's tedious but the process of law and its appeals verbs checks and balances in our system of system. a single judge has ruled contained by the federal district court. a panel of 3 judges will rule in the federal appellate court. lastly a panel of 9 courts will rule in the supreme court.
Seeing as they want to vote on my marraige, when do I get the fate to vote on whether I agree with the marraige of a straight couple?
No. The reversal of Proposition 8 proves the folly of allowing individuals to vote on which rights a certain segment of the population should have access to. I reckon that judge has a better kindness of justice and freedom than those 7 million Californians, which is why our country was not founded as a true democracy. We shouldn't allow the ideals of equality and freedom be compromised by temporary public opinion.
CALIFORNIA voters tried to put it into THE STATE constitution.
That is entirely different from the US Constitution.

This is the first time that any federal decide has had the opportunity to rule on ithe grill, as it has never before come up to that time a FEDERAL court.

There is no provision in US law for any benign of national referendum.

READ THE ARTICLE.



The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
NO vote, poll, or tenet can override it.

If you want to change it, you have to force Congress and the state legislature to enact an amendment.

http://www.examiner.com/x-14931-Pittsbur…


Related Questions: