Is There A Legal Reason...

[The Colonel]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of the judicial system?

STOP THE HATE!
Ya! Legalise Fred like all the other people from BROKEN HOMES!
Give him RESPONSIBILITY for SPREADING HIS LEGS!

STOP THE DISCRIMINATION!!

[myron myron]

STOP THE HATE!

Hypocrisy personified.

[Fred75]

Imitation is the highest form of flattery!

[The Colonel]

STOP THE HATE!

Hypocrisy personified.

TURKISH bald insurance saleman were BORN THAT WAY!
Just like ANIMAL LOVERS! And the members of N A M B L A!
They PISS on their kids!

When the HATE laws get passed you won't even be able to call an APPLE a FRUIT! They were BORN THAT WAY!

STOP THE HATE!!

[The Colonel]

Imitation is the highest form of flattery!

Ya!
Only an EMASCULATED LIBERAL would talk like Fred!

[Fred75]

When the HATE laws get passed you won't even be able to call an APPLE a FRUIT!

I like that one!

[myron myron]

STOP THE HATE!

Hypocrisy personified.

TURKISH bald insurance saleman were BORN THAT WAY!
Just like ANIMAL LOVERS! And the members of N A M B L A!
They PISS on their kids!

When the HATE laws get passed you won't even be able to call an APPLE a FRUIT! They were BORN THAT WAY!

STOP THE HATE!!

Pathological lying, bigotry, idiocy and hypocrisy personified.

[The Colonel]

STOP THE HATE!

Hypocrisy personified.

TURKISH bald insurance saleman were BORN THAT WAY!
Just like ANIMAL LOVERS! And the members of N A M B L A!
They PISS on their kids!

When the HATE laws get passed you won't even be able to call an APPLE a FRUIT! They were BORN THAT WAY!

STOP THE HATE!!

Pathological lying, bigotry, idiocy and hypocrisy personified.

Are you talking about yourself?

[jinjin]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is a part of the checks and balances to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

[myron myron]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Any minority or specific minorities?

What constitutes "oppressing"?

What constitutes "injustly"?

What are the specific "checks and balances" and where are they set forth?

[Fred75]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Is society unjustly oppressing the minority of men in N A M B L A ?

So.... as you can see... society has a right to infringe upon the minority when the minority is destructive to society.

[jinjin]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Any minority or specific minorities?

What constitutes "oppressing"?

What constitutes "injustly"?

What are the specific "checks and balances" and where are they set forth?

How about laws deemed unconstitutional?

If by popular vote the people have decided to execute all homosexuals, should that new law be placed into effect without any chance of being overturned? I think not.

[myron myron]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Any minority or specific minorities?

What constitutes "oppressing"?

What constitutes "injustly"?

What are the specific "checks and balances" and where are they set forth?

How about laws deemed unconstitutional?

If by popular vote the people have decided to execute all homosexuals, should that new law be placed into effect without any chance of being overturned? I think not.

I asked you specific, reasonable questions about your own words, to wit: ". . . the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority."

Your reply ignores all my questions, instead posing a question and scenario unrelated to my questions. That dog won't hunt.

Did you give any thought to the meaning of the words you posted before posting them? If so, kindly share your thoughts. If not, kindly confirm.

[Fred75]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Any minority or specific minorities?

What constitutes "oppressing"?

What constitutes "injustly"?

What are the specific "checks and balances" and where are they set forth?

How about laws deemed unconstitutional?

If by popular vote the people have decided to execute all homosexuals, should that new law be placed into effect without any chance of being overturned? I think not.

Do the rights of men that have sex with men superced the rights of a nation to a clean blood supply?

I think not.
There are justifiable reasons for denying many people certain rights when its in the best interest of society and it's children.

[jinjin]

I hope not. It would be horrible thing if the court can no longer overturn a law deemed unconstitutional.

So then you think the democratic process of the people should be dropped for the AUTOCRACY of a few judges?

No, they are both integral parts of a representative democracy. The latter is part of the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority.

Any minority or specific minorities?

What constitutes "oppressing"?

What constitutes "injustly"?

What are the specific "checks and balances" and where are they set forth?

How about laws deemed unconstitutional?

If by popular vote the people have decided to execute all homosexuals, should that new law be placed into effect without any chance of being overturned? I think not.

I asked you specific, reasonable questions about your own words, to wit: ". . . the checks and balances needed to guard against the majority from unjustly oppressing the minority."

Your reply ignores all my questions, instead posing a question and scenario unrelated to my questions. That dog won't hunt.

Did you give any thought to the meaning of the words you posted before posting them? If so, kindly share your thoughts. If not, kindly confirm.

Your terse replies and questions left me with the same impression.

For checks and balances:

The system of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful. Each branch “checks” the power of the other branches to make sure that the power is balanced between them.

The process of how laws are made is a good example of checks and balances in action. First, the legislative branch introduces and votes on a bill. The bill then goes to the executive branch, where the President decides whether he thinks the bill is good for the country. If so, he signs the bill, and it becomes a law.

If the President does not believe the bill is good for the country, he does not sign it. This is called a veto. But the legislative branch gets another chance. With enough votes, the legislative branch can override the executive branch's veto, and the bill becomes a law.

Once a law is in place, the people of the country can test it through the court system, which is under the control of the judicial branch. If someone believes a law is unfair, a lawsuit can be filed. Lawyers then make arguments for and against the case, and a judge decides which side has presented the most convincing arguments. The side that loses can choose to appeal to a higher court, and may eventually reach the highest court of all, the Supreme Court.

If the legislative branch does not agree with the way in which the judicial branch has interpreted the law, they can introduce a new piece of legislation, and the process starts all over again.

For representative democracy:

James Madison, one of the key architects of the American constitution, regards the system of representation as a cure for the problem of faction. By a faction, Madison means "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). Obviously, it would not be a problem if the faction forms only a minority of the political community because the democratic procedure of equal voting will allow the majority to defeat the "sinister views" of the faction. A problem arises, however, if there is a majority faction. In this case, the very form of popular government will enable the majority faction to "sacrifice to its ruling passions or interests both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This problem is generally referred to as the "tyranny of the majority."

Also...

A representative democracy can involve more powers given to the legislators than under a constitutional monarchy or participatory democracy, so almost all constitutions provide for an independent judiciary and other measures to balance representative power

Linking these together, I have already stated my interpretation and my position on this topic.

EOT