Prop 8 in California

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You haven't provided any convincing evidence that they are operating outside of the law.

First, I'm operating under the general principle that the law must grant this to the judges, not that they can usurp it. Provide that evidence first.

Second, I'm speaking of a more general concept because I, like you, am no lawyer. If a judge's decision should take primacy over a constitutional amendment in the name of minority rights, who protects the majority from a tyranny of the minority?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wasn't Prop 8 a response to some judges overruling a prior ballot initiative? Aren't we right back where we started?

If someone is against judicial review of this sort, why wouldn't that person also be a strong supporter of prop 8, since it was essentially an effort to restore the original will of the majority which had been usurped by judges?

How does this review differ from the earlier review?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wasn't Prop 8 a response to some judges overruling a prior ballot initiative? Aren't we right back where we started?

If someone is against judicial review of this sort, why wouldn't that person also be a strong supporter of prop 8, since it was essentially an effort to restore the original will of the majority which had been usurped by judges?

How does this review differ from the earlier review?

My understanding is that the previous initiative (Prop 22 in 2000) was a statutory change, while Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. Those are two very different types of law.

I don't (and didn't) oppose the judges' rights to review Prop 22, though I think they came to the wrong decision, in a 4-3 vote I might add.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If California overturns a constitutional amendment, then California doesn't need an amendment process, it can just go to Mount Olympus so that their jurists can divine the law from the inards of its victims. If California does this, then there is no rule of law, and i vote for anarchy. Fuck California.

There have been 500 amendments to the California Constitution. Compared to 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Does the U.S. Constitution allow for amendment by simple majority vote?

You're looking at the California amendment through a federal Constitutional lens.

I agree. The California amendment process sucks - it should be much more difficult to amend it. But that's how it is, and if it's that easy to amend it, why shouldn't it be more susceptible to review by the California Supreme Court?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

There have been 500 amendments to the California Constitution. Compared to 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Does the U.S. Constitution allow for amendment by simple majority vote?

You're looking at the California amendment through a federal Constitutional lens.

I agree. The California amendment process sucks - it should be much more difficult to amend it. But that's how it is, and if it's that easy to amend it, why shouldn't it be more susceptible to review by the California Supreme Court?

It can, but not just because the judges say it should (or you, or Lebowski). Otherwise, you're just diluting the difference between the two.

Prop 22 was overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. So pro-marriage forces got it added to the constitution. Now what's the argument ... that the constitution is unconstitutional?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

There have been 500 amendments to the California Constitution. Compared to 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Does the U.S. Constitution allow for amendment by simple majority vote?

You're looking at the California amendment through a federal Constitutional lens.

I agree. The California amendment process sucks - it should be much more difficult to amend it. But that's how it is, and if it's that easy to amend it, why shouldn't it be more susceptible to review by the California Supreme Court?

Here's the part which is weird for me. If the US Constitution is amended, the Supremes, to my knowledge, have not be involved much in reviewing the legitimacy of the Amendment, i.e., throwing it out or confirming, but in interpreting them.

Here the Cal Supremes are being ask to throw out the Amendment, that's plain weird. You are endowing the Justices with power not normally seen elsewhere. In reality, your Justices are far more powerful than any around. It's contrary to normal judicial experience.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here's the part which is weird for me. If the US Constitution is amended, the Supremes, to my knowledge, have not be involved much in reviewing the legitimacy of the Amendment, i.e., throwing it out or confirming, but in interpreting them.

Here the Cal Supremes are being ask to throw out the Amendment, that's plain weird. You are endowing the Justices with power not normally seen elsewhere. In reality, your Justices are far more powerful than any around. It's contrary to normal judicial experience.

On the other hand, you can argue that the people in California have far more power in California than they do elsewhere. 500 constitutional amendments!

Think about it - The federal government and most state governments are based in the three branches with their checks and balances for the creation, enforcement, and interpretation of laws: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Which of those branches participated in the passage of Prop. 8? None of them.

California has a long history of the state Supreme Court reviewing amendments and revisions, and it is beyond question that it does have that authority under the California Constitution. It is a check on the great power that the people of California have in passing amendments to the constitution.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

On the other hand, you can argue that the people in California have far more power in California than they do elsewhere. 500 constitutional amendments!

Think about it - The federal government and most state governments are based in the three branches with their checks and balances for the creation, enforcement, and interpretation of laws: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Which of those branches participated in the passage of Prop. 8? None of them.

California has a long history of the state Supreme Court reviewing amendments and revisions, and it is beyond question that it does have that authority under the California Constitution. It is a check on the great power that the people of California have in passing amendments to the constitution.

I don't like your process at all, not at all. But I'd prefer it rest with the people as opposed to a few persons.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't like your process at all, not at all. But I'd prefer it rest with the people as opposed to a few persons.

I don't like it, either. But I'd rather it lay with the three branches of government, rather than with the people who spend the rest of their time watching reality shows and wrestling.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't like it, either. But I'd rather it lay with the three branches of government, rather than with the people who spend the rest of their time watching reality shows and wrestling.

There's so much wrong with this post. Trust gov't rather than the people. Insulting elitism. Who do you think elects those people in the three branches gov't anyway, SoCal?

This is how people think who are unable to convince others to agree with them.