Iowa SC Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Gromnir]

btw, the Brown piffle weren't for enoch as he no doubt already knows such stuff...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

Maybe it wasn't you, Enoch. Maybe we, the unwashed masses who don't practice law, are the Larry Tribes. Don't know. Don't care. If we don't understand the nuances of the law, it still falls on us to help legislate, doesn't it? I mean, even Iowa has a referendum. Here in California, we have the trifecta. Referenda, Ballot Propositions, and Recall.

 

So, despise us all you want. I certainly don't have the education or background to comment extensively on the technical aspects of the law, but that doesn't stop ballots propositions from falling on my plate in virtually every single election, does it?

 

I read the posts here and I'm glad to have a more informed perspective, especially since I take you at your word that you have a legal background. However, I'm subject to the law, even without a law degree. I help create law, in the form of ballot initiatives, even without a law degree. Because of those same ballot initiatives, I help decide the law by amending the consitution, and they don't even ask if I have a high school diploma when I show up at the polls.

 

So, since I must make a decision in each election, I will certainly discuss these issues. If my ignorance shows, so be it. ...But there are a lot more people with me in the unwashed masses than there are legal professionals of any stripe. Get rid of the ballot initiative and I'll be happy to settle for elected officials to decide these issues. Makes voting a lot easier.

[Enoch]

To clarify, I intended no malice or spite. Merely pointing out that systems had evolved over the years to differentiate between the comparisons you were offering.

 

American government has always been a balance between pure democracy and a somewhat oligarchic technocracy, and this has worked pretty well over the years. There are both good and bad consequences of nudging things one way or the other through processes like ballot initiatives.

[Guard Dog]

American government has always been a balance between pure democracy and a somewhat oligarchic technocracy, and this has worked pretty well over the years. There are both good and bad consequences of nudging things one way or the other through processes like ballot initiatives.

 

I doubt even you would disagree that for the last sixteen years or so we have been in a definite and perceptible drift to the latter.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Aristes]

I don't understand. Honest engine. What you suggest isn't a legal issue in the first place. It's a political one.

 

Pure democracy, aristocracy (oligarchy), and monarchy aren't an either/or proposition. In terms of early American views of government, you can't separate them because they are inextricably intertangled. We didn't end up with one or the other or even the other. We ended up with something meant to accomodate folks with a wide variety of views all along the spectrum. If anything, the folks at the pure democracy end of the spectrum got the shaft. Just look at the writings of early republicans for ample evidence on that point. (Think Jefferson, not George W. Bush).

 

I'm sure I made some sort of silly slip, especially since I'm one of the hoi polloi who lacks a law degree, let alone a background in early American history. I'm just a guy with a high school diploma and a few books. Nevertheless, my point has always been largely the same. The US constitution lacks the component for direct democracy and I dislike the fact that we have ballot initiatives that pit the judiciary against the explicit will of the people.

 

Anyhow, Enoch, I'm not offended. Hell, I'm jealous. I wish I had a law degree also. I'm glad to have the information. Having a fresh perspective is worth a few bruises on my ego.

[Enoch]

@Ari, yes, the determination of whether power is exercised by elites or by the masses is unquestionably political. And I see your point that plebiscite legislation can be seen as more legitimate than normal legislation. (Indeed, that's the whole reason why the late-19th-century Progressives pushed for them in so many states.) My point about courts and ballot initiatives is simply that the initiatives are less likely to have screened out potential constitutional problems than are pieces of law that went through the standard legislative back-and-forth process, through committees, hearings, potential executive veto, etc. In our current structure, courts don't treat plebiscite legislation any different from normal laws, but I can understand the pro-democracy logic behind that not necessarily being the best policy.

 

 

@GD, On balance, probably. The increase in the expense of political campaigns, and consequently, in the power of large-money donors is certainly an anti-democratic factor, as is the federalization of lots of homeland-security-related activities in response to the 9/11/01 attacks, and the increase in conditions placed on federal grants to states and localities in things like the NCLB law. On the other hand, oligarchic tendencies have been checked by things like the federalism jurisprudence of Rehnquist Court, internet-driven increases in transparency ("media elites," at the very least, have had their power sharply curtailed), major events like the Gray Davis recall and the various gay marriage ballot initiatives, and even the growth in internet-driven Dean/Obama political fundraising as a partial alternative to big-money donors.

[Wrath of Dagon]

American government has always been a balance between pure democracy and a somewhat oligarchic technocracy, and this has worked pretty well over the years. There are both good and bad consequences of nudging things one way or the other through processes like ballot initiatives.

I couldn't disagree more. The fact that the oligarchic technocracy has sabotaged the education system and turned the average voter into a blathering idiot is not a reason why oligarchic technocracy is justified.

[Guard Dog]

QUOTE (Aristes) I'm sure I made some sort of silly slip, especially since I'm one of the hoi polloi who lacks a law degree, let alone a background in early American history. I'm just a guy with a high school diploma and a few books. Nevertheless, my point has always been largely the same. The US constitution lacks the component for direct democracy and I dislike the fact that we have ballot initiatives that pit the judiciary against the explicit will of the people.

 

In many instances (California Gay Marriages as example) the ballot initiative is an amendment to the state constitution and as such if passed it becomes the supreme law of the state and trumps the state supreme court. In fact they state supreme court is then bound to uphold it and judge cases accordingly. I dislike the ease with which many state constitutions can be amended because it often leads to bad law as Enoch correctly pointed out. I could name three off the top of my head in Florida. However, it can be a necassary counter weight to rein in the state judiciary and to a lesser extent the state legislatures which all to often forget they govern at the consent of the governed. It is not a pretty or perfect system. In fact Republican Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all of the others.

 

And don't worry, not having a college degree does not mitigate any point you make so long as it is founded in logical reasoning. You are certainly no dummy Aristes.

 

(Enoch) On the other hand, oligarchic tendencies have been checked by things like the federalism jurisprudence of Rehnquist Court, internet-driven increases in transparency ("media elites," at the very least, have had their power sharply curtailed), major events like the Gray Davis recall and the various gay marriage ballot initiatives, and even the growth in internet-driven Dean/Obama political fundraising as a partial alternative to big-money donors.

 

Excellent points. The trouble with me is I see so many instances where the federal government is usurping power and trampling liberty (especially since Obama took office but GWB was nearly as bad) that I often miss or quickly forget that there are a few triumphs out there.