03-05-2009, 04:47 PM | #31 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
In Texas, the supreme court is by election. |
|
03-05-2009, 05:02 PM | #32 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
A revision changes an existing provision and must first be approved by a two thirds majority of the legislature. I think this is the requirement for one of the two procedures in Nevada. An amendment simply occurs by majority vote, after enough signatures are collected. We have the initiative and referendum process in Nevada, and if i thought long enough I'd remember the distinction, but I believe it's similar to California's. But what is a revision? If a vague provision is interpreted to apply, and an addition is made which states the will of the people, namely to add a provision identifying who gets the benefits of marriage, that sounds like an addition. Previously I don't believe California had marriage specific rights in its Constitution. The whole distinction seems inane. The purpose is that majority rule might be used to oppress a minority. The distinctions seem vague and difficult to apply. As Levin pointed out, the opponents never claimed in their marketing it was a mere revision but rather it was a major addition and change.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2009, 05:07 PM | #33 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney so this is not my area of expertise.
Sincere question: We seem to "rallying around the constitution" here. We are talking about the Calif. state constitution, not the US constitution. The US constitution can never be changed in this manner, so it makes senses that the rules would be different. If you believe that state-by-state voter referendums ("referenda"?) that change state constitutions should never be reviewed by the courts, how could the courts ever go about protecting minority rights?
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
03-05-2009, 05:10 PM | #34 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
03-05-2009, 05:11 PM | #35 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Second, relying only upon an additional "layer" of protection, minority rights are protected by the state Constitution, but what you are asking is whether the state supreme court justices should stand above the state constitutions. That's weird. So the question is, what if the State Constitution does not infringe upon the US Constitution but infringes upon somebody's idea of minority rights? Well, that isn't necessarily unlawful and not the job of state justices to impose their idea of minority "rights". Their job is to look at statutes and state conduct to determine if they violate the state constitution, not to create pseudo rights directly contrary to the adopted constitution.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 03-05-2009 at 05:15 PM. |
|
03-05-2009, 05:15 PM | #36 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
If this is such a blatant violation of the state/federal judicial process, then why has it gotten this far? The article implies that the current review is not such an extraordinary event.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
03-05-2009, 05:17 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
03-05-2009, 05:18 PM | #38 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
It's not a violation of the federal process, but California has long been known for bastardizing the traditional plebescitic process. The Justices have long thumbed their noses at the State Constitution, long ago since Rose Bird did it.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2009, 05:22 PM | #39 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
You haven't provided any convincing evidence that they are operating outside of the law.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
03-05-2009, 05:25 PM | #40 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Second, if the justices act contrary to what appears "lawful", there is nobody to punish them or to correct them. So justices can make the unlawful, lawful.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|