Should 1 Person have the Power to Overturn the Will of 3 Million Voters?


When our Founding Fathers established our nation, they purposely divided the power and responsibilities into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.  Of the three branches, the judicial was supposed to be the branch with the most limited powers.  Our Founding Fathers never intended for judges to have the authority or power to overturn the will of the people.  They felt the people should have the say, not judges, not the president and not even Congress.  That’s why they started the US Constitution with the words ‘We the people of the United States.’  If they saw America today, they would wonder what happened to the country and government they created.

Years ago, the people of California and Arizona voted to make English the official language.  Hispanic minorities complained and took their whining to the courts.  In both states, the will of the people was overturned by one or three liberal judges who felt they had more power than the people.

This week, I saw the same thing happen just north of me in Ohio.  In 2004, Ohio voters passed a state constitutional amendment, Ohio State Issue 1 that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions.  The measure passed with 62% of the vote.

Naturally gay activists have been upset because the majority of Ohio citizens still believe that homosexuality is a sin as described in the Bible and should not be allowed.  They’ve been trying to challenge the constitutional amendment and will of the majority ever since.

Four gay couples in Ohio went to other states to be legally married and are now expecting children.  They want the right to list both names on the children’s birth certificates, but the Ohio Amendment does not allow the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.  Without the legal recognition, the state only allows the names of the biological parents to be listed on the birth certificates.

The couples took their case to federal court and one liberal judge, Timothy Black, decided that the will of the people means nothing.  He just ruled that the state of Ohio must recognize the same-sex marriages from other states thus allowing the names of both members of the couple to be appear on the birth certificates.

Phil Burgess, President of Citizens for Community Values, was responsible for the effort that led to the passage of the amendment.  He has accused Black of legislating from the bench and commented about the judge’s ruling, saying:

“He’s one judge striking down the will of 3 million voters. Wait until we get to the Sixth Circuit. Then we’ll take this case more seriously. He’s an activist judge and he loves the limelight.”

Burgess said that his organization conducted a voter poll that revealed that 56% of the voters are still against legalizing same-sex marriage.  He believes that the reason gay activists took their agenda to the courts is that they knew that they could never get enough votes to repeal the amendment.  He commented:

“They’re bullies. They’re pushing people around and people are getting fed up. They made it sound like it’s all about same sex marriage, two people wanting to get married. They don’t realize that in Massachusetts for example, when same sex marriage was legalized it was in the public schools in first grade the next year, talking about same sex marriage and homosexuality as being normal,”

The State of Ohio is appealing Judge Black’s ruling.  Knowing the appeal was coming, Black has stayed his own ruling, and has asked both sides to respond in writing before deciding if his stay will remain in effect throughout the appeal process or not.

So back to my question as to whether one man or woman should have the power to overrule the will of the voters?  America was established as a republic, not a democracy.  In a republic, the people rule and have the say.  In a democracy, the people elect those they want to dictate over them.  American is no longer a republic and the will of people no longer rules.

That means any judge or panel of judges can rule on their own personal agendas instead of on the Constitution, the laws of the land and the will of people.  Even if 100% of the voters approved of any issue such as banning same-sex marriage or making English the one and only official language, all of their votes could be nullified by a single liberal judge.  That should never be allowed to happen!

Previous Alan Dershowitz Admits the Extreme Left Hates Jews
Next 442 Proposed Tax Hikes from the President Who Promised Not to Raise Taxes on Most Americans

Comment