Constitution trumps all

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
f we had just ``let the people vote," black children would have been confined to segregated classrooms, wives would have remained the property of their husbands, and slaves the chattel of their masters.
Article Tools

Representative democracy is about more than accommodating popular opinion; it is about avoiding the tyranny of the majority.
(snip)

(snip)
As Justice John M. Greaney wrote in his concurring opinion in Goodridge v. The Department of Public Health, ``. . . as a matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same-sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families."

For two years now in Massachusetts, same-sex couples have been marrying, rearing children, and contributing to their communities without causing harm to those who find their unions morally objectionable. That some take offense at same-sex marriage is regrettable, not actionable. The social disintegration predicted by many when laws against interracial marriage began to collapse across this country did not materialize either. That does not mean everyone in America is yet comfortable with interracial marriage; it means the law affords them no remedy for their discomfort.
(snip)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/09/constitution_trumps_all/

[rhett o rick]

1. Neocon Nazi's believe the Constitution should be suspended

during this time of war, so they can protect us.

[Martin Eden]

2. Democracy = tyranny of the majority

The founding fathers understood this, which is why they established a representative democracy CONSTRAINED by the Bill of Rights and judicial oversight. Pure Democracy -- in which everything is subject to popular vote -- subjects anyone viewed as different to the rule of the mob.

The FEDERAL Constitution indeed trumps all. Those who trumpet state sovereignty should keep in mind that blacks in the South might still be subject to Jim Crow laws if not for intervention on their behalf by the federal government.

However, we must also keep in mind that democracy can also shape the federal constitution via amendment. With backing from enough senators and enough state legislatures, and amendment banning gay marriage would trump the Massachuesettes judiciary and constitution.

[YankeyMCC]

3. This is a point where I'm in the midsts of a self-examination

of what exactly I believe is best.

Just a few years ago I wouldn't hesitate to 100% agree with you.

But I've become a bit of a states advocate largely because of what I've seen can happen when the wrong people gain control of the Federal government. And because I do think the left has made some mistakes about how we've tried to lead the nation toward progressive goals in that it has seemed to some people in some states and localities as arbitrary rule from afar. I know that much of that is incorrect perception but you have to be aware of how the message is received by your audience and you have to lead intelligently by not pushing people to far to fast.

And it does appear that the founders did want one of the checks and balances of our government to be state vs Federal. It seems to me there should've been either a removal of the importance of the state and more of a focus on the locality or at least the addition of the locality - so a guarantee of local democracy and voice not just for states.

So yes the Fed constitution trumps but isn't there an important role for states and localities and yes a right for people at the state or local level to dictate how they live and manage their resources? Many on the left decry the idea that we can impose our ideas on people in other countries, doesn't the same hold for other states?

Of course there are lines, we can't tolerate any state legalizing slavery but could we tolerate (by which I mean still exist as a functional and effective national polity) some states having an effective ban on abortions? (BTW: I'm just using that as an example I am staunchly pro-choice. My point is there are some things that are abhorrent to progressive ideas we might need to recognize will take longer in some parts of the nation than others to achieve )


I'm just posing the question for discussion.

[Martin Eden]

4. federal vs state vs local

What rights and powers are given to each jurisdiction by the Constitution; how should we interpret the Constitution; and what is best?

This is THE discussion, and one that has been going on since the Constitution was framed. Too often the principles involved are obscured and even distorted by the specific issues involved, such as abortion. We all know the religious right tries to have it both ways, as long as the result is to their liking.

I think when it comes to personal liberties and issues like voting rights and the integrity of the ballot, ALL citizens should have the same protections and hence federal law should rule. The same goes for the environment, at least whenever pollution crosses state borders. In the long run I think more citizens are protected when these fundamental rights are guaranteed at the national level.

Ultimately, a well-informed citizenry is essential to good government at any level. I think the worst abuses are more possible at the state and local level because a constitutional amendment requires so much broad-based support.