Quite a bit OT -- was RE: Slightly OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006
bryan.sant at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 11:24:39 MDT 2005
On 7/11/05, Michael Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu> wrote:
> One great example was when Brigham Young tried to get a polygamy case
> brought before the US supreme court in an attempt to get a ruling that
> the government had no business whatsoever defining marriage in anyway
The federal government doesn't.
> Of course had such a ruling been granted, it would have open the way to
> allowing marriages of any type, which is something that Utah opposed
> (and even amended the state constitution to this end) during the last
> election. Somewhat ironic.
No irony. We live in a republic. The government should *represent*
my views. My view is that the federal government shouldn't define
such things, but the local government should establish laws that best
represent the local people. The state amendment obviously best
represents the views of those in the state.
> Today, however, Brigham Young would have won since the courts have, and
> this I believe is wrong, taken it upon themselves to rule on the
> constitutionality of laws rather than rule on the application of law,
> and also to bring about legislation of new laws, bypassing basic
> democratic principles. It is up to the legislative branch of government
> to decide whether something is constitutional or not. In other words if
> there is a bad law, people should band together and exercise their
> democratic rights and see that the law is changed. Of course there is
> an argument that could be made which is that the constitution must be
> enforced, but I think that is quite a cynical argument, but possibly
I absolutely agree. Gee this reminds me of a "type of things to come"
from a previous civilization in the Americas.
More information about the PLUG