This is just another thought from my previous post and the comments that were made. Please read!
A friend brought up a good point about how the supreme courts (state or federal) are part of the system of checks and balances in our government. He mentioned this to my complaint that 4 judges in California ignored the votes of Californians and said that gay marriage would be recognized in this state. Although I agree that the supreme courts are part of the checks and balances in our government, I do not believe it was ever intended to be a checks and balance for the voice of the people. They do not have the right to interpret the constitution just as they see it as a balance to the voice of the people. As Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." This government was established to serve the people of this country. As public servants they should uphold the desires of the people. It is not a perfect system, but it does work. I suppose we will see what the voice of the people is when all the votes are counted.
Suicide
13 years ago
1 comment:
Actually, many aspects of American government were specifically designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. That is a crucial component of our governmental system.
The Founding Fathers knew that even the voice of the public needed to be tempered by checks and balances.
We can see many, many examples of how the voice of the people is insulated from policy action. For example, we do not follow a popular vote for presidential elections. If we did, Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. Constitutional amendments require 3/4 majority of state legislatures to be passed.
Think about it, we don't even elect our supreme court judges. Clearly they are not meant to beholden to the populace.
Post a Comment