Prop 8 in California

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I would certainly like to flush the amendment/revision process down the toilet.

Only because you think certain people shouldn't be voting.

[SoCalCoug]

To be more clear, you seem to argue for a pure democracy. However, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, as is California.

You seem to want to set aside that whole scheme in favor of pure democracy by the will of the majority.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

<crickets>

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

[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

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Change the state constitutions such that judges are more easily recalled, as an example.

In Texas, the supreme court is by election.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Change the state constitutions such that judges are more easily recalled, as an example.

In Texas, the supreme court is by election.

So I read a brief synopsis of what the arguments are.

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.