Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The court would not have directed the legislature to fix the problem unless the state constitution allowed them to do so.
They could have easily voided part of the law that was being challenged, however, they felt that something had to be corrected and they had the power to prevent procrastination by the legislature.
The people can attempt to vote on an ammendment, however, if it is considered unconstitutional, then it will not be put on the ballot.
Could you please provide where it states that a constitutional amendment has to be deemed "constitutional" before it can be ratified by the constituents of the state?
If it does(and I've seen no evidence that it would) then IMO the courts have been allowed too much power over legislation and it must be corrected.
CkG
CAD
A proposed ballot issue that is ruled to be illegal will not be placed out for the public to vote on it.
I am operating on the theory that a court challenge to any anti-gay ammendment (one that tries to validate the law that was just struck down) would have the ammendment ruled to be illegal and thereby prevent the ammendment from even being on the ballot.
Aslo, the people of Mass apparently can not have a chance to vote on an ammendment until 2006 (caught this tibit on the news).
The court must have felt that they had the authority to order a correction be made by the legislature in regards to the voided law. Also, they must have had a legal standing to dictate the original time frame of six months for the legislature to act.
the Senate wanted an advisory opinion on what would be acceptable.
They must have been working on a solution as ordered by the court, and wanted to know how far they could waffle.
The court stated in this last opinion that there was no grey area.