Judicial activism run amok

Putting aside whatever one's feelings are about the subject of gay marriage, my big question here is, "at what point did state judges gain the authority to invalidate portions of the state constitution?" Just like federal judges don't have the authority to invalidate amendments to the U.S. Constitution, aren't state judges equally powerless to invalidate state constitutional amendments, or am I missing something here? And if so, why has this egregious example of judicial overreach not been addressed by a single conservative political pundit?

http://time.com/103572/arkansas-gay-marriage-suspension-ruling/

Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk

They don't have that authority.

What they do have under common law legal foundations it to strike down laws that have a positive not a negative effect on liberty and human society.

An anti gay bill by the state is contrary to common law foundations of No victim no crime. Mens rea and actus reus.

Marriage, specifically gay marriage, is NOT a constitutional right.

Its not in the Bill of Rights and no SCOTUS ruling has ever said its a protected right.

States and the people have the power and authority to decide if same sex marriage is allowed in their state or not.

One of the biggest travesties of justice occurred in California. When voters passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage the states governor and attorney general flat out refused to enforce or defend it.

No one is playing fair in the gay marriage arena.

Personally, I believe the government should not restrict marriage rights.

However, same sex marriage is NOT a constitutional right.

Even at the risk of playing devil's advocate, traditional marriage between a man and a woman isn't a constitutional right either.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

tattedupboy said:

Even at the risk of playing devil's advocate, traditional marriage between a man and a woman isn't a constitutional right either.

Click to expand...

probably true.

Requiring folks to acquire a license for the sake of entering into a marriage contract seems unconstitutional to me.

People should have Liberty of Contract.

The very definition of the police power, The Government's police power " as understood in the constitutional law of the United States, is simply the power of the government to establish provisions for the enforcement of the common as well as civil law maxim, sic utere two ut alienum non laedas'--
" so use your own so as not to harm that of another." In Anglo- American common law, especially in the law of nuisance, the word two(your own) was generally understood to refer to property, particularly to real property, or land. The word applied not only to property but also to liberty;it obliged everyone to use one's 'own'-- to use one's own property, to exercise one's own liberty-- so as not to harm that(the property or the liberty) of another. The legitimate exercise of the police power thus was limited to enforcing the sic utere principle.

ANY LAW WHICH GOES BEYOND THAT PRINCIPLE, WHICH UNDERTAKES TO ABOLISH RIGHTS, THE EXERCISE OF WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE AN INFRINGEMENTS OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, OR TO LIMIT THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE GENERAL SECURITY, CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE POLICE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

See Herbert Spencer's " Social Statics" where he articulated "The law of Equal Freedom" as the liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same.

From a morality stand point, the principles involved in this issue have only their God to answer unto, not Government.

My .02

Regards
CCJ

Activist jurisprudence is results oriented, focused on reaching the particular result, or outcome, that a judge desires in a particular case. What makes a given decision 'activist', however, is not the result it reaches so much as the reasoning the judge gives in support of his or her decision. Although most decisions that are criticized as 'activist' are ones in which the courts strike down laws as unconstitutional, courts may be just as activist, properly speaking, when they improperly uphold laws against constitutional challenge. Whether or not a decision is 'activist' again, depends not on its outcome but on the reasons on which a court bases its decisions--whether it is based objectively on the applicable law or subjectively on some other non-legal consideration, Thus, a court abuses its judicial review power,by being 'activist', when it decides questions of constitutionality on impermissible grounds, regardless of whether it ultimately finds the law in question either constitutional or unconstitutional. Some of the most egregious examples of judicial activism, in the proper sense of the term, are cases where the courts have upheld laws they should have found unconstitutional.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

NosePicker said:

Marriage, specifically gay marriage, is NOT a constitutional right.

Its not in the Bill of Rights and no SCOTUS ruling has ever said its a protected right.

States and the people have the power and authority to decide if same sex marriage is allowed in their state or not.

One of the biggest travesties of justice occurred in California. When voters passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage the states governor and attorney general flat out refused to enforce or defend it.

No one is playing fair in the gay marriage arena.

Personally, I believe the government should not restrict marriage rights.

However, same sex marriage is NOT a constitutional right.

Click to expand...

You have no constitutional rights.