Saturday, April 4, 2009


This article highlights the crux of the dynamics of our Democratic Republic. When it comes to granting and/or removing civil rights from any minority group, is it the job of the Judiciary to decide or can the will of the majority of the electorate decide?

Yesterday's win in Iowa, and the likely attempt by those in that state who are against same-sex marriage to gather enough signatures to put this issue on a ballot, places the state Supreme Courts in both Iowa and in California, as well as in other states, to decide their role regarding Constitutional rights. That is, does the Supreme Court in a state interpret the Constitution regarding civil rights or can the will of the majority of the electorate overturn the state Supreme Court's decision and, therefore, be the final decision-maker regarding civil rights?

If the will of the majority of the electorate can override a State Supreme Court's decision regarding civil rights of a minority group, one has to ask what the role of a Supreme Court is?

We say we are "a nation of laws!" Now state Supreme Courts have to decide whether or not this assertion is true and, while it is discussing this issue, also has to decide its own relevance in our society.

Same-sex marriage has provided the litmus test to ultimately decide whether or not we are a nation of laws and whether or not the Judiciary has the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

For any state Supreme Court, such as the one in California, to decide that the will of the majority can override its decisions regarding civil rights as it interprets the Constitution, relegates this country to be at the mercy of mob rule at the ballot box, and invalidates the very need for a state Supreme Court!

And a tyranny of the majority is one of the very things that the Founding Fathers were most afraid of! That's why the U.S. is a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy!

The civil rights of every single minority group are up for grabs if there can be such tyranny of the majority! And it is hoped that the members of the state Supreme Courts are sensitive enough to understand this basic truth!
Share |

No comments: