Many of these were amendments enacted through referenda. A constitutional amendment changes the constitution. It cannot, therefore, be unconstitutional. It requires another constitutional amendment. This was done to establish and then later to repeal prohibition. Remember? Judges have no business overruling a constitutional amendment.
A referendum isn’t the same thing as a Constitutional amendment.
A state constitutional amendment cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. Judges can overturn it.
A referendum to pass a constitutional amendment is a referendum (to pass a constitutional amendment).
Yes. I may not like the verdict or even the reason, but if it was based on a sound legal reason I would understand it. If necessary, I would do what I could to overturn the legal reason. Since I’m not a lawyer, i would assume that my involvement would be paying an appropriate lawyer.
Give that man a prize!
So, a degree in philosophy, eh?
Not to mention appeal to authority…claiming himself as the authority on philosophy.
That’s one type of referendum, yes. You can’t use the words interchangeably and expect anything coherent to come out, Melchior.
And I’m still waiting for an answer about SSM legislation.
An appeal to authority is a fallacy only when the ‘authority’ is unqualified to express an opinion.
An appeal to tradition (or custom) is appropriate when the question is about the tradition itself, whether it deserves to have any force. Obviously, a great deal of our lives and culture is governed by tradition and custom. there are numerous cases where people of differing cultures come into conflict. This is a manufactured conflict. There is no legitimacy to claims of ‘unfair discrimination’.
For instance, if the “authority” insists loudly upon his own authority while repeatedly getting basic facts wrong.
I didn’t write that.
I am discussing fallacies, and on that topic I *do *have some expertise.
There is no proof that you are a legitimate authority on any topic.
Based on your posts in this thread, you manifestly do not.
It’s a good match for your legal expertise. Please answer this question:
Yes, you are discussing fallacies. Throughout the conversation you’ve been avoiding relevant questions by pointing out fallacies instead. In fact, you’re making no arguments at all except for the argument that we’re using fallacies and that you’re an expert in that area. What an excellent red herring you’ve created.
I feel it necessary to point out that you are not right by default, and assuming that you are just because you have not received a satisfactory answer is itself a fallacy.
Just because it is governed by tradition or custom does not make that tradition or custom necessarily correct. It **only **makes that tradition or custom extant.
I’ve asked that question multiple times – are you afraid to answer it?
This seems appropriate to put here: A Texas judge just struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage. Keep this topic bumped and we might have a few more red states join that group before Mel gets banned! 