AZ State propositions..

[hdcd]

[tankerman]

They could all pass in California and the some liberal judge would rule against the will of the people and over turn the laws. Except no smoking of course.

[MikeK]

They could all pass in California and the some liberal judge would rule against the will of the people and over turn the laws.

Well to be fair, sometimes the will of the people is wrong.

[Sgt Raven]

Well to be fair, sometimes the will of the people is wrong.

Are you in the Green party or the Peace and Freedom party?

[tankerman]

Well to be fair, sometimes the will of the people is wrong.

Your absolutely right. However the judicial make-up in our state causes me to question the legitimacy of most of the rulings on propositions(or anything) that are passed. Legislating from the bench or killing legislation from the bench. Many judges are confusing the bench with a thone.

If the will of the people is to take away rights of a minority the will is wrong. The Constitution is protection from that, thats what makes this country a republic and not a true democracy. If it were a democracy, majority would rule

[VeryCoolCat]

PROP. 107
Establishes marriage as
a union between one man
and one woman; bars state
from recognizing other
unions.

I would be against this prop, its not fair that they get out of marriage... we have to suffer mariage and they should suffer from their mistakes too.

[MikeK]

Are you in the Green party or the Peace and Freedom party?

Nope. But the fact is, if people in CA outlawed all guns, it would be wrong and I would expect a judge to overturn it, even tho it was the "will of the people".

Sometimes, you need to change other laws (ie the Constitution) in order to enact the laws you want to.

[MikeK]

Your absolutely right. However the judicial make-up in our state causes me to question the legitimacy of most of the rulings on propositions(or anything) that are passed. Legislating from the bench or killing legislation from the bench. Many judges are confusing the bench with a thone.

Legislating from the bench is a misnomer.

First, people who actually go and read the decisions they disagree with have an impossible time finding judgements that aren't steeped in the law.

Second, it's only a single branch of government. Any decision made by a court can be overturned by the passage of new legislation.

Checks and balances FTW.

[tankerman]

Legislating from the bench is a misnomer.

First, people who actually go and read the decisions they disagree with have an impossible time finding judgements that aren't steeped in the law.

Second, it's only a single branch of government. Any decision made by a court can be overturned by the passage of new legislation.

Checks and balances FTW.

It's easier for one person to do as they please, than to get several hundred to agree on a way to change that decision.

Judgements that are steeped in law? Rose Bird. There are many others just like her. Law is open to interpretation, whatever you are looking for you will find.
Checks and balances do not always work. collusion, corruption, abuses of power.

The interpretation of law by the executive or judiciary has beem contended by some as law making, particulary when the judicia must address laws that appear to conflict. The extent to which courts may be seen to"legislate" in this manner informs the ongoing contemporary debate concerning judicial activism.
THE ABOVE IS PLAGIARIZED. I copied it because I agree with it, and while "legislate" may not be concise, it is not by definition a "misnomer"

[MikeK]

All I can say to that is that the more cases you read and the more law you study you start to realize that "legislation from the bench" is nothing more than a catch phrase politicians use to try to play on the ignorance of the masses. It's how our system is suppose to work.

[DsF_Saint]

AZ State Legislators make a whopping 24,000 a year? They must live on the street.... More amazingly, all they are asking for is 36,000 a year. They would be pissed off if they knew what the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors gets....

I totally disagree with taxing smokers anymore then they already are getting taxed. To me it is taxation without equal representation, and totally against the constitution. Kinda what the whole Boston Tea Party was about, and I don't even smoke.

[NeoWeird]

If you ask me smoking is like drinking; there is nothing wrong with it but once your 'liberties' start to infringe upon other people's liberties than you need to start making some boundries. It's not right that Joe Average gets hit by a drunk driver and it's not right that Jane Average has to serve drinks to a bunch of guys in a bar blowing smoke in her face. Some people want to take it a bit overboard, but there needs to be areas set aside where people can and can not smoke.

As for taxing it, just about any tax is a joke. I bet 90% of taxed money doesn't go towards what it was original intended to go towards. But hey, as long as their pockets are nice and silver lined than nothing else matters, right?

Still, you got to respect a state that would stand so unanimously on some subjects. I bet illegal immigrants are going to want to start staying away from Arizona a bit more than they did before, and the ones that do go there are going to find it harder and harder to scam and scew the innocent out of money.

[MikeK]

It's not right that Joe Average gets hit by a drunk driver and it's not right that Jane Average has to serve drinks to a bunch of guys in a bar blowing smoke in her face.

Oh I don't know.

I'm a recovering smoker. From 3 packs a day in '92 to 0. I hate smoking.

But as long as Jane Average isn't being forced to work where she does, is it really anyone elses problem?

[MrTuffPaws]

Sad to see that AZ is falling into the stupid propositions trap that CA fell into. When the people can change the constitution, the masses of the idiots will prevail.

[Paul]

All I can say to that is that the more cases you read and the more law you study you start to realize that "legislation from the bench" is nothing more than a catch phrase politicians use to try to play on the ignorance of the masses. It's how our system is suppose to work.

So in theory the legislation of California would be covered under the same FEDERAL laws that the other 49 states were right? The masses might be more ignorant over on this side of the border but last time I checked 49 of the 50 states had a better application of The Second Amendment to the US Constitution than any of the 35 million subjects of California enjoy.

The "Equal protection" clause doesn't apply here no more than the 10th Amendment does in California and yet the FEDERAL court does zero.