Prop 8 in California

[Levin]

This is a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation. The anti-Prop 8 folks campaigned as if the proposition was legitimate prior to the election. They lost, and now they say it was an illegitimate revision of the Constitution.

Any legal argument will be used to achieve the desired ends. The lack of consistency shows there's no integrity in their legal reasoning or arguments.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is absurd, and you know it Cali.

It is one thing for a statute to be determined unconstitutional when it is viewed against the existing Constitution. That is what we expect of our highest reviewing jurists.

It is quite another thing for these jurists to declare that changes duly adopted are unconstitutional as compared to some nebulous "higher law" constitution, one unwritten except in the minds of the all powerful jurists.

They are creating bullshit out of thin air because they don't like the results of the elections to change the Constitution. Bullshit, but bullshit walks in California.

Historically, when the highest law of the land usurps natural law, there are generally two means of recourse:

1. Bring new laws
2. Bring revolution

America is strong, but jurists doing things like this will cause some creaking in the joints.

[Cali Coug]

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.

If California does this, "there is no rule of law, and you vote for anarchy?"

Classic Arch-speak. Hyperbole, stacked on hyperbole, stacked on irrationality.

If there is no rule of law, the first thing you are going to do is "vote?" Good luck with that system of anarchy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Historically, when the highest law of the land usurps natural law, there are generally two means of recourse:

1. Bring new laws
2. Bring revolution

America is strong, but jurists doing things like this will cause some creaking in the joints.

I am not intimately familiar with the legal arguments on either side, having not read their briefs. I would bet any amount of money you are even less familiar. Before you go grabbing your pitchfork and assault rifles, take a breather and read through the briefs first.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, the 2nd Amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional. And it wasn't adopted by a majority vote, either.

That's a nonsensical argument, it was adopted by the process in place at the time.

If California doesn't wish for majority modification of its state constitution then it should change the process, not overrule it because it hates the result.

Bad facts make bad law. If Opponents had thrown as much energy prior to the election, then they would have won and not have to worry about revealing their true lack of character. It's hard to have sympathy for folks who lack integrity.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's a nonsensical argument, it was adopted by the process in place at the time.

If California doesn't wish for majority modification of its state constitution then it should change the process, not overrule it because it hates the result.

Bad facts make bad law. If Opponents had thrown as much energy prior to the election, then they would have won and not have to worry about revealing their true lack of character. It's hard to have sympathy for folks who lack integrity.

Question: have you read the briefs of either side?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If California does this, "there is no rule of law, and you vote for anarchy?"

Classic Arch-speak. Hyperbole, stacked on hyperbole, stacked on irrationality.

If there is no rule of law, the first thing you are going to do is "vote?" Good luck with that system of anarchy.

One can "vote" by means other than formal election. California deserves to become a wasteland. Fuck it all.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Question: have you read the briefs of either side?

I've been involved in challenges of constitutional amendments in Nevada, and would read the arguments, but the practical review of what is going on is obvious. We lawyers are trained to manufacture bullshit, bad faith arguments when our clients lose something they didn't wisht to lose, and pay you enough money and you would argue in court that the LDS Church is the spawn of Satan.

Typically, you challenge the numbers of signatures to get it on the ballot, and I'm confusing for the moment referendum versus amendment, as I know there are procedural distinctions where one goes in front of the legislature and one does not. After verifying the sufficiency of the signatures, you examine the language and the explanations on the ballot.

However, if the process is correct, there really is no historical precedent for distinguishing between "amendment" and "revision." A distinction with no difference except the Courts wish to reject the will of the people.

Go ahead show me the actual caselaw, it won't change the practical review. It's bullshit.

[MikeWaters]

If I am against gay marriage, I am ROOTING for the CA Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

Nothing will be better in mobilizing people against gay marriage as that.

"Look what they did in California. We need to make the laws against gay marriage in our states bullet-proof, what we have is not good enough."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If I am against gay marriage, I am ROOTING for the CA Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

Nothing will be better in mobilizing people against gay marriage as that.

"Look what they did in California. We need to make the laws against gay marriage in our states bullet-proof, what we have is not good enough."

Many states have already amended their constitutions. It appears that isn't good enough, because the gay marriage folks will just claim it wasn't a legitimate amendment. What else can they do?

We can appropriately dub this minority rule.