I'm not sure. I could go both ways. But the law of the land is supposed to be influenced by the people who live on the land. I would not be nearly as upset over the Same Sex Marriage issue if it were the will of the people. How do you know if it is the will of the people? Vote. If there was a referendum or amendment for the state to vote on and the voters approved of marriage equality for homosexuals, then I would have no leg to stand on because I love how my country is organized.

 

We aren't a democracy we are a democratic republic. Common misconception.

We aren't a democracy we are a democratic republic. Common misconception.

 

As a government teacher, I am well aware of the difference. In a democratic republic we elect people to represent our wishes. How do they find out what the people wish? They usually put something on a ballot. There have been states that have done that very thing, some pass and some do not.

I have quite a few thoughts, and generally agree with you to a certain extent, but am having a difficult time putting them to words. Since same sex marriage and abortion are generally the two issues that come up whenever religion is discussed among the rule of law, I hate that they are both talked about in the same breath among Conservatives.

 

Whether religious-based or not, everyone has their own set of morality and will undoubtedly use it to shape their views. I've always felt that allowing others to do something, whether or not I would ever wish to exercise this right doesn't give me the right to complain unless its effects are relatively severe. Ignoring the difficulties of actually outlawing abortion, the law allowing this to happen has the consequence of ending life. If anything else, this is how my set of morals differentiates between the two.

 

I agree with your reasoning , I just don't think abortion applies. If you believe it is murder then this just isn't affecting one person , you are fighting to protect innocent life that can't protect themselves.

 

Gay marriage , gambling , and many other issues fall under reasoning though. I find it silly using religion to fight things that don't affect you.

 

But we as a society have already decided that murder is wrong and illegal. It's just a certain % of the population believes this one segment of people aren't worth protecting from murder.

I have always thought, as citizens, we have a duty to abide by the laws of the land. If we do not abide by the laws of the land, we will face legal ramifications, be it fines, jail time or other restrictions.

 

If I choose to ignore the law of the land, my reasoning really doesn't matter and I should be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

Speaking for me only, I would have to have a very good reason to break the law. One of those good reasons would be if obeying said law would cause me to break a religious conviction (for a Christian, breaking God's law). That is a personal choice, and I would have to be prepared to accept my punishment for breaking the secular law even though I would feel justified in doing so on God's authority.

 

I seem to remember some of those Bible characters doing jail time for similar offenses.

So is there ever a time when government should step in and grant/protect equal rights for the minority?

 

When it violates our constitution, then they should step in and protect. But is it the governments job to do what they deem is best for us? Or is it the government's job to make decisions based on the will of their constituents?

As a government teacher, I am well aware of the difference. In a democratic republic we elect people to represent our wishes. How do they find out what the people wish? They usually put something on a ballot. There have been states that have done that very thing, some pass and some do not.

 

They find out when the next election comes if they are reelected. Voting on major issues allows the mob to rule. That is why our founding fathers put this system in place.

 

Checks and balances , along with voted representation.

I have always thought, as citizens, we have a duty to abide by the laws of the land. If we do not abide by the laws of the land, we will face legal ramifications, be it fines, jail time or other restrictions.

 

If I choose to ignore the law of the land, my reasoning really doesn't matter and I should be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

Speaking for me only, I would have to have a very good reason to break the law. One of those good reasons would be if obeying said law would cause me to break a religious conviction (for a Christian, breaking God's law). That is a personal choice, and I would have to be prepared to accept my punishment for breaking the secular law even though I would feel justified in doing so on God's authority.

 

I seem to remember some of those Bible characters doing jail time for similar offenses.

 

Very well stated.

They find out when the next election comes if they are reelected. Voting on major issues allows the mob to rule. That is why our founding fathers put this system in place.

 

Checks and balances , along with voted representation.

 

Are supreme court justices elected? And who has the authority to check a supreme court ruling?

 

Unless I am wrong, I believe the answers are No and No one. But I have been wrong before.

I agree with your reasoning , I just don't think abortion applies. If you believe it is murder then this just isn't affecting one person , you are fighting to protect innocent life that can't protect themselves.

 

Gay marriage , gambling , and many other issues fall under reasoning though. I find it silly using religion to fight things that don't affect you.

 

But we as a society have already decided that murder is wrong and illegal. It's just a certain % of the population believes this one segment of people aren't worth protecting from murder.

 

Oh, we're in definite agreement here. My brain is jumbled and if it didn't come across that way, just re-read your post and my views are summed up.

 

I guess, I might disagree with any given law because I think it is arbitrary or wasteful, or any other reason, but it is a pretty high bar to oppose something like the rule of law on morality grounds only.

Are supreme court justices elected? And who has the authority to check a supreme court ruling?

 

Unless I am wrong, I believe the answers are No and No one. But I have been wrong before.

 

Not to sound rude but you just told me you teach this subject. There was a very clear reasoning behind having non elected officials as supreme court judges and the 3rd branch and final key of checks and balances.

 

A constitutional ammendment by Congress supercedes a supreme court ruling.

Are supreme court justices elected? And who has the authority to check a supreme court ruling?

 

Unless I am wrong, I believe the answers are No and No one. But I have been wrong before.

 

No, and the Supreme Court. It might not be tomorrow, but a later court with different justices can always take up and overturn previous decisions.

 

There has to be some set of finality for any given case or we could have someone like Kim Davis ignoring judicial orders in perpetuity since there would always be something else to appeal. This is the beauty of the American system. Three branches of government with different powers to limit each other.

Not to sound rude but you just told me you teach this subject. There was a very clear reasoning behind having non elected officials as supreme court judges and the 3rd branch and final key of checks and balances.

 

A constitutional ammendment by Congress supercedes a supreme court ruling.

 

Doesn't mean I know everything. I've been wrong before. I just don't like that nine people, who are not elected by The People, make laws for the whole country. I have always taught that Marbury vs. Madison gave them the power of judicial review. Not lawmaking.

Doesn't mean I know everything. I've been wrong before. I just don't like that nine people, who are not elected by The People, make laws for the whole country. I have always taught that Marbury vs. Madison gave them the power of judicial review. Not lawmaking.

 

They didn't make the law. They cutoff a section of the law that was Repugnant to Equal Rights. Now Congress can go back and create a law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Doesn't mean I know everything. I've been wrong before. I just don't like that nine people, who are not elected by The People, make laws for the whole country. I have always taught that Marbury vs. Madison gave them the power of judicial review. Not lawmaking.

 

The Supreme Court can only change laws they determine go against rights protected in the constitution . They can't adjust the constitution or the ammendment or the rights granted.

 

I get much more angry at justices who bring personal bias and ignore the constitution on a ruling and go with personal beliefs.

 

For example Judge Bunning should be applauded . I don't know his personal beliefs but based on the great conservative family he comes from , one could assume. But he set that a side and made a ruling based on the rule of law.

Are supreme court justices elected? And who has the authority to check a supreme court ruling?

 

Unless I am wrong, I believe the answers are No and No one. But I have been wrong before.

 

They are "elected" by people we elect in the Senate. The President doesn't just replace retired Justices with whoever. There is no review to the Supreme Court. Judicial review HAS to Stop somewhere or we fall into a circular review....and nothing gets done.