“State officials have the right to act as a check on the peo

[jimlongley]

My late wife was a German American, American first, from German roots, and she and her neighbors were treated horribly at the beginning of the war, even before Pearl Harbor. The neighborhood they lived in was heavily German, and the local beer garden was known, back then, as "Scheutzen Park" and guess what they did there. Toward the beginning of the war she vividly remembered the "German" flag that hung in the park, and several neighbors had similar ones, leading to all of them being accused of being Nazi's.

Actually, the German flag they displayed was a distant predecessor to the more modern ones, a lot of these people had come over just before or after WWI, and "Germany" as such was very different in size and shape in both of those times, and most of these folks were actually "Berliners" and from central Germany, not from the outlying states. Their display of the flag was out of loyalty to that older era and actually anti-Nazi, but that didn't stop them from being harassed, accused of crimes, and even the park was shut down so they couldn't have their target practice "for the uprising of the Bund."

My late wife's father tried to enlist right after Pearl Harbor, when he only had two children, but was told he was too old, at 25 with two kids, so he was a little surprised when they drafted him at 28 a couple of years later, with a third kid. He always suspected that the real reason he was turned down was his German roots.

In heavily German neighborhoods there was a great deal of "racist" harassment, it's just that Oriental people were a little more recognizable than Germans. My Irish friend used to get asked if he was German due to his complexion and hair color, and when I was stationed in Italy I was often asked, with a mostly English and some American Indian background, if I was a Paisan.

Looks can be deceiving.

[boba]

I refer all of you, most respectfully, to the two following statements:

Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If they followed the Tenth Amendment, it would invalidate at least 3/4 of the Federal laws and at least 1/2 of the Federal budget.

[Dragonfighter]

I think I see two conversations emerging from TAM's OP. The first is whether the government has the right to check the people's power...absolutely not and that has been well established. The second is whether the people have the right, by majority to limit the liberty of the minority and God help me, I find myself coming down on loadedliberal's side here...to a point.

The whole concept of a republic is each man is his own sovereign. IOW, I have liberty up to the point in which it infringes on my neighbor. Laws, even temporary ones, passed by the legislature are supposed to protect MY liberty from, say, assault, robbery, etc. Removal of liberty by due process of law is supposed to accomplish the same thing, I.E. removal of 2A rights from a felon, imprisonment, etc.

As far as I can see, there is no constitutional wording that protects the rights of ANYONE to marry and it shouldn't. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and licensing such is (or should be) beyond the scope of the government. That said, when you gather a majority to vote away a person's right(s) you have mob rule, a necessary distillation of becoming a "democracy". Now here's where I go into what TAM begged us not to do, a discussion on gay marriage.

As far as I know, homosexual relationships are not illegal in California. So defining what is "legally" recognized as marriage (Prop 8) is not taking away their liberty to be with one another or for that matter, enter into a committed covenant (I.E. "partnership"). This fight is due to an agenda "legitimizing" what is viewed by many as an unnatural relationship. Now if the proposition was "reaching into the bedrooms" then you have an argument for the "mob" running over a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; however misguided they may be.

How this ties into the 2A is that it IS enumerated in the constitution being recognized as a natural (God given) right. Can the majority then initiate or vote in a law expanding my liberty? Absolutely. And here we are back at the original discussion which is, the people check the government, not the other way around.

Bottom Line:

The majority does NOT have the right to restrict others' liberty UNLESS it is to protect the liberty of others. I.E. Keep your intimate relationships out of public view.

The government does NOT have the right to override the will of the people (majority) unless it infringes on the rights of others (this has been abused IMHO).

Defining what is "recognized" as a legal marriage does not inherently infringe on people's right to engage in a consensual relationship, and should be irrelevant to the marriage covenant.

Checking this out of control government (California or Federal) needs to be done now and with great prejudice.

[Dave2]

I refer all of you, most respectfully, to the two following statements:

Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If they followed the Tenth Amendment, it would invalidate at least 3/4 of the Federal laws and at least 1/2 of the Federal budget.

That'd make the supercongress's job pretty easy... maybe we should suggest it to them.

[Bullwhip]

Congress makes the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The judiciary examines whether the laws, when challenged, are constitutional or not. The Constitution does not give authority to any one elected official to determine which laws will be enforced, and which will not be enforced. Therefore, ANY decision by ANY elected official to selectively choose to not enforce existing law is unconstitutional......Obama's refusal to fully enforce immigration law is an example (as well as Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, and Reagan's decisions to selectively enforce the laws).

The constitution doesnt' say anything about the courts ruling against the laws. The supreme court made that up on their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of early officials disagreed. "Mister chief justice has made his ruling now let him enforce it." Or something like that.

I think every elected official should decide if a law is constitutional and "selectively choose to not enforce" it if its' not. Its' not unconstitutional to not enforce a law.

[atticus]

We have the federal and state constitutions serving as a check on the power of a tyrannical democratic majority: for example, the people (through their elected legislatures) have the power to pass anti-gun, or anti-free speech measures. The constitution protects the rights of the people (even if it is a minority of the people) against such tyranny. So, it seems to me that the trick is to see whether gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right like the right to bear arms, or the right of freedom of assembly, or such. I would expect Supreme Court justices like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas (whom I respect) to say it is not. I think that's the constitutional argument.
In addition, I think there's another compelling argument, and that is whether it is any of society's business to regulate marriage. I am persuaded that society's interest is in promoting the good health of the state as an ongoing social enterprise, and a society's continuation into the future. Traditional one woman / one man marriage, with its general goal of having and rearing children, meets that end and should be promoted. Gay marriage simply does not promote the legitimate societal goal of having and rearing children. I know there are exceptions and there is adoption. I'm not against gay couples adopting kids, if no woman/man couple can be found. I'm talking the general.
Other than the above, I don't see that government has any business regulating traditional marriage, or promoting gay marriage, or polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or whatever else. I'd love to see government getting out of the marriage business altogether.

[unhappycamper]

Other than the above, I don't see that government has any business regulating traditional marriage, or promoting gay marriage, or polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or whatever else. I'd love to see government getting out of the marriage business altogether.

Hitting someone with tax penalties for their family choices is worse than the taxes that pushed the colonists to have the Boston Tea Party. We could use a little colonial spirit today. And a large supply of tar and feathers.

[atticus]

While you're at it, save a little of that tar and feathers for the numbskulls that said I have to use a small tank on my toilet and who said I can no longer use my light bulbs. COME ON already! I've had enough of this.

[sjfcontrol]

While you're at it, save a little of that tar and feathers for the numbskulls that said I have to use a small tank on my toilet and who said I can no longer use my light bulbs. COME ON already! I've had enough of this.

And low-flow shower heads.

[tacticool]

I never understood the logic behind encouraging people to use more water in total because they have to take longer showers to rinse off all the soap, or flush twice for solid waste.