"In a representative democracy, obviously, citizens are free to band together and campaign for changes to laws they consider unjust." The Supreme Court is the final say, Dred Scott, anyone?
It is interesting both of the points you highlight.
First, citizens are definitely free to band together to campaign for changes to laws they feel are unjust. However, in the case discussed in the article, repealing the new law of the land will violate the constitutional rights of those covered by the new law. And whether you agree with it or not, it has now been decided by the Supreme Court. The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment.
Second, Dred Scott is not a really a comparable example as it deals with someone who is technically not a US citizen - as unjust as it may be. The gay people in question - whether the religious crowd likes it or not - are definitely citizens of US.
I did not use "Dred Scott" as a similar case as to content, but as my best example of which the Supreme Court got completely wrong. ...... "The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment."...... Nope.....the Supreme Court can and has reversed itself..........So while the Supreme Court may have the final say, its' say isn't always final.
Ah yes, you are correct about the Supreme Court - they can reverse themselves. But that would require one or more of the 5 that voted in favor to either change their mind or drop dead and be replaced by Christian conservative justice(s) that would vote their religious conviction over the Constitution.
And I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't get the Dred Scott case wrong from a legal standpoint as slaves were technically not citizens - the decision can be said to be morally wrong though.
"Curtis conducted an extensive historical review of statutes, case law, and demographic records and asserted that in five of the original 13 states, blacks had held citizenship at the time of the Constitution's ratification -- and that they had therefore voted and participated in the process of its ratification. It was "not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race,""Therefore, blacks were "in every sense part of the people of the United States [as] they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."- Benjamin Curtis (dissent) As to Dred Scott himself, Taney's majority opinion contained obvious bias, but not totally without legal basis. However the decision went far, far beyond just Dred Scott and basically enslaved a whole population of prior free men, and then opened the entire west to slavery, by overturning existing law............."Slaves" were not citizens, correct, but there were black citizens, just not deemed as such by Taney et al. ............. Scott v. Sandford was little, in proportion, about Dred Scott and the results a travesty.
"In a representative democracy, obviously, citizens are free to band together and campaign for changes to laws they consider unjust." The Supreme Court is the final say, Dred Scott, anyone?
It is interesting both of the points you highlight.
First, citizens are definitely free to band together to campaign for changes to laws they feel are unjust. However, in the case discussed in the article, repealing the new law of the land will violate the constitutional rights of those covered by the new law. And whether you agree with it or not, it has now been decided by the Supreme Court. The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment.
Second, Dred Scott is not a really a comparable example as it deals with someone who is technically not a US citizen - as unjust as it may be. The gay people in question - whether the religious crowd likes it or not - are definitely citizens of US.
I did not use "Dred Scott" as a similar case as to content, but as my best example of which the Supreme Court got completely wrong. ...... "The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment."...... Nope.....the Supreme Court can and has reversed itself..........So while the Supreme Court may have the final say, its' say isn't always final.
Ah yes, you are correct about the Supreme Court - they can reverse themselves. But that would require one or more of the 5 that voted in favor to either change their mind or drop dead and be replaced by Christian conservative justice(s) that would vote their religious conviction over the Constitution.
And I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't get the Dred Scott case wrong from a legal standpoint as slaves were technically not citizens - the decision can be said to be morally wrong though.
"Curtis conducted an extensive historical review of statutes, case law, and demographic records and asserted that in five of the original 13 states, blacks had held citizenship at the time of the Constitution's ratification -- and that they had therefore voted and participated in the process of its ratification. It was "not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race,""Therefore, blacks were "in every sense part of the people of the United States [as] they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."- Benjamin Curtis (dissent) As to Dred Scott himself, Taney's majority opinion contained obvious bias, but not totally without legal basis. However the decision went far, far beyond just Dred Scott and basically enslaved a whole population of prior free men, and then opened the entire west to slavery, by overturning existing law............."Slaves" were not citizens, correct, but there were black citizens, just not deemed as such by Taney et al. ............. Scott v. Sandford was little, in proportion, about Dred Scott and the results a travesty.