Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto
| Author |
Message |
|
Beeblebrox
All Star Poster
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
|
 Re: Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto Caius wrote: My only beef is with the courts usurping power from the other branches. When the court interprets a Constitutional provision, when it might not be clearly applicable to a case, that closes the door, for the most part, to the other branches enacting laws in that area. But who says it wasn't clearly applicable to the case? Even the governor of Iowa, who opposes same-sex marriage, examined the court decision and found it to be sound. The court found that the ban violated their state constitution. That's the court's job. I don't see the problem there.
|
| Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:46 am |
 
|
|
|
Beeblebrox
All Star Poster
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
|
Re: Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto MikeQ. wrote: Um, am I counting this right? That's now FOUR states of the US with gay marriage? Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont? Incredible. It would be a nice even 5 if California didn't a step backward. New York state might soon join them. Gov Paterson says he will be introducing legislation to allow same sex marriages.
|
| Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
Re: Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto Caius wrote: Groucho wrote:
But who decides that it is "not clearly applicable to a case"?
Well at least if the legislature does, we can vote the bums out and elect people who will better comply/not comply with a "not clearly applicable" provision of the state/federal Constitution. I'm sure you agree with me that the Constitution is the floor and not the ceiling, I think our disagreement is that I would prefer the Legislature build towards the ceiling and not the courts. Courts are free to strike down, and should, any law that has its aim below the floor, either facially or as applied. In general, you're right. However, an exception should exist for civil rights. Civil rights should never be left to the whim of the majority. If the legislature votes to remove or deny civil rights to someone, the courts should definitely step in at that point... I would of course prefer the legislature to do the right thing, but if they don't, then the courts should step in (when they can; sometimes they are limited by the state's constitution of course). _________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
|
| Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
Re: Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto MikeQ. wrote: Um, am I counting this right? That's now FOUR states of the US with gay marriage? Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont? Incredible. It would be a nice even 5 if California didn't a step backward.
Peace,
Mike And Canada. Oh wait, they aren't a state? _________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
|
| Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Raffiki
Forum General
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 am
Posts: 9966
|
Re: Vermont passes gay marriage, GOP Gov threatens veto I think we should have at least 8 states by the next Pres election, maybe even 10?
_________________
Top Movies of 2009
1. Hurt Locker / 2. (500) Days of Summer / 3. Sunshine Cleaning / 4. Up / 5. I Love You, Man
Top Anticipated 2009
1. Nine
|
| Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
