Why do we not exhibit Popular Sovereignty on moral issues?

Because at the end of the day EVERY issue is a moral issue. Taxes, gay marriage, environmental regulation, drug laws, abortion, health care, all of these are put up to a vote where those deciding are basing their vote on whether the law is right, or just. And that is a moral distinction. You're allowed to do something, or not, because it's right or wrong. Moral or immoral. Taking from the wealthy to run food shelters may be moral to you. Or it may be immoral. Cases can be made for either side, but at the end of the day the vote is really saying, "Is this law on the side of right, or wrong?" Hence trying to make the claim that only social issues are questions of morality is wrong. ALL laws are a question of morality, whether economic or social. Hence in order to practice individual sovereignity, so long as the actions taken do not infringe on the rights of others, all actions must be allowed.

Short of an amendment, the constitutionally recognized and protected rights of individuals are not subject to the will of the majority as expressed through the democratic process.

A woman's right to an abortion is recognized by the Supreme Court, but gay marriage is not.

What is popular is not always right. That is why our majority rule is tempered with minority rights.

And I say those things even though I do not like abortion and am apathetic about gay marriage.

>"smoking joe" - I wish you would tell that to Thom Hartmann, who believes that the Supreme Court does not have judicial review in certain cases.

I'm guessing you got this ridiculous argument from the same Con who gave Wesley Snipes his tax advice?

I'm not a fan of mob rule... unless you are talking about the Black Sabbath album :)

thats what the courts are for. mob rule isn't good rule