[Daralundy]

I don't think handguns should be banned. But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

[The Blitherer]

Yes, when it really IS unconstitutional.

[rayvd]

Absolutely. Checks and balances. If voters want to pass a law that violates the constitution, they need to get a constitutional amendment passed, not some local ordinance.

This is exactly the type of thing judges *should* be doing IMO.

[Dog Gone]

But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

It depends. If he ruled, as the story says, that the local law violates state law, then it has to be struck down.

Local voters can't change that fact.

[steveo]

But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

What if some 'voters' said only whites allowed to own property in a city.

[xrp]

I don't think handguns should be banned. But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

Uh...yeah. We're a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, if a majority of people said it was okay to kill you (and you hadn't done anything wrong), how would you feel about that?

[paul51]

I don't think handguns should be banned. But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

The constitution doesn't require a popular vote to validate it.

[maine-iac7]

But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?<

If it violates a standing law - I would think so.

[mike70]

Consider a state passing a law allowing slavery. It is in conflict with a constitutional amendment. Should it be allowed because the voters in some jurisdiction want it?

[proxy_user]

"I don't think handguns should be banned. But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

The answer is this: a state is sovereign, but a a city is not. The voters of a state can ban handguns, but the voters in a city cannot ban handguns unless a state law is passed allowing them to do so.

Whether any of the state laws would violate the Federal constitution or not is unknown, and not at issue in this case.

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly right. When it violates the U.S. or state constitutional framework, the judge must step in. That doesn't mean they will, but they are required to if they are called to rule on a case. Still, some judges these days don't interpret the constitution the way sane people do.

[little jeremiah]

How about if voters decide somewhere that slavery should be re-instituted?

[Celtman]

But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?

      If California were a democracy, no.  But the writers of the Constitution wisely guaranteed that each state would have a republican form of government. 

Democracy:

A government of the masses.  Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.  Results in mobocracy.  Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.  Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.   Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.  Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.  Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.  A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.  Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.  Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.  Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, U.S. History and the Constitution