Prop 8 reversal?

[Daheavy1]

Twice the people of California have voted and decided that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. After the first vote, the California judges overturned the public vote and allowed same sex marriage. The recent November election included Prop 8 to reverse the judges decision and define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Now the California Attorney General is trying to reverse the publics vote again?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=361326


What good is voting if judges or state officials can overturn laws at their own discretion? At some point, can the losers just give in? How much is this costing the state of California? With the state already severely in debt, why can't we focus on bigger items?

 

[quantumleap]

I said this would happen long before votes were cast. Many California Propositions have been nullified by legal protests. It usually gets taken to the California Supreme Court.

 

[kingbill]

The reason certain laws are enacted by the courts is that the public can't not always be trusted with someone elses human rights.

Right after 9/11, I'm sure a ban in Islam could have been voted through but the first amendment gives you people freedom of religion.

 

[Daheavy1]

If the public cannot be trusted then why even let the Props on the ballot?

 

[kingbill]

If the public cannot be trusted then why even let the Props on the ballot?

Certain issues...but human rights issues shouldn't be left to the majority because it's the minority of people that need to be protected.

Individuals are smart but people are stupid.

 

[guitarjosh]

If part of the Constitution gets rules unconstitutional, those who made that ruling should be removed by any means necessary, including assassination.

 

[barman]

What good is voting if judges or state officials can overturn laws at their own discretion?

In certain parts of the USA, it's conceivable that citizens could "vote" to reinstate legal slavery; criminalize adultery; allow police to search homes of suspected criminals without a warrant...the list of possible topics for which a majority might vote is lengthy.

However, in The United States of America, such citizen-driven mandates must pass constitutional muster and it is for that reason all citizens (or groups of citizens) are allowed an avenue for to civilly redress errors by the government.

In this case, the government of California, via the path of the citizen initiative, has for the moment made it illegal for two gay adults to be married with all the legal and social protections afforded to any two US citizens who get married.

We can only hope the California SC, or if neccesary, the SCOTUS will acknowledge the injustice therein and reverse the mandate created by the passage last month of Prop 8 by California voters.

 

[barman]

If part of the Constitution gets rules unconstitutional, those who made that ruling should be removed by any means necessary, including assassination.

cool

If the California or US Supremes rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, please get that assasination campaign rolling and for sure keep us up to date on how it's working out for ya.

 

[guitarjosh]

cool

If the California or US Supremes rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, please get that assasination campaign rolling and for sure keep us up to date on how it's working out for ya.

I might not have to. I'm sure there are many more people in this country that love the Constitution.

 

[barman]

And the Constitution specifically provides for a legal system of jurispudence that helps assure it's integrity.

I'm pretty confident that as legal marriages for gays increase around the country, there won't be an associated increase of judges being assasinated

 

[Mistermj]

cool

If the California or US Supremes rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, please get that assasination campaign rolling and for sure keep us up to date on how it's working out for ya.

If the Cal Supremes do it...I'll be looking forward to the recalls that throw them out on their collective keisters.

No government official is immune from the voters will whether they be in the executive, legislative or the judicial branch.

 

[quantumleap]

If the Cal Supremes do it...I'll be looking forward to the recalls that throw them out on their collective keisters.

No government official is immune from the voters will whether they be in the executive, legislative or the judicial branch.

The judicial branch cannot be recalled by the voters. They must be allowed to be protected from the mass vote. Imagine if the majority of voters voted for slavery. The judicial branch should be allowed to rule in unconstitutional without fear of reprisal from the masses.

My problem is that the other 2 branches of government (Legislative and Executive) rarely overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's as if we have 2 branches that are beholden to the judicial branch. That's not separation of powers.

 

[SayHeyKid]

If the Cal Supremes do it...I'll be looking forward to the recalls that throw them out on their collective keisters.

No government official is immune from the voters will whether they be in the executive, legislative or the judicial branch.

They aren't immune by law, but the government is criminal. They don't listen to the people or laws. :missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte

What about medical marijuana laws? Armed thugs still assault grannies with cancer in wheelchairs. Beat the living shit out of them, then throw them in a cell to die without their medication.

During Katrina, if you didn't give up your guns and consent to being robbed and raped you were assaulted by police and military treasonous trash.

The government is rogue.

 

[Mistermj]

The judicial branch cannot be recalled by the voters. They must be allowed to be protected from the mass vote. Imagine if the majority of voters voted for slavery. The judicial branch should be allowed to rule in unconstitutional without fear of reprisal from the masses.

My problem is that the other 2 branches of government (Legislative and Executive) rarely overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's as if we have 2 branches that are beholden to the judicial branch. That's not separation of powers.

How to Recall a California Supreme Court Justice
<hr>The Constitution of California gives the right and responsibly for government squarely on its citizens. The simple elegance of its recall process makes plain that the authority and duty to control the states judiciary resides with the people.<hr>by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Sunday, November 9, 2008

Information is power if power has already been granted to you. Indeed, in California great political authority has already been granted to its citizens. That power is our history and our legacy, for the California Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 reads:


"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."

 

[nimue77]

The judicial branch cannot be recalled by the voters. They must be allowed to be protected from the mass vote. Imagine if the majority of voters voted for slavery. The judicial branch should be allowed to rule in unconstitutional without fear of reprisal from the masses.

My problem is that the other 2 branches of government (Legislative and Executive) rarely overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's as if we have 2 branches that are beholden to the judicial branch. That's not separation of powers.

The Constitution can be amended.
Anyhow, from my perspective, it's the executive and legislative branches that go unchecked far too often.

 

[Daheavy1]

We can only hope the California SC, or if neccesary, the SCOTUS will acknowledge the injustice therein and reverse the mandate created by the passage last month of Prop 8 by California voters.[/quote]

Injustice? Are you kidding?

Barman, since you're a proponent of gay marriage, let me ask you a few questions....Should a fifty year-old male be allowed to marry an 11 year old girl if they both consent? Should a man be able to have five wives? Should a person be able to marry an animal?

If you answered no to any of these questions, please explain why as it would contradict the gay marriage proposal...as anyone should be able to marry...and besides, they're not hurting anyone.

 

[kingbill]

Injustice? Are you kidding?

Barman, since you're a proponent of gay marriage, let me ask you a few questions....Should a fifty year-old male be allowed to marry an 11 year old girl if they both consent? Should a man be able to have five wives? Should a person be able to marry an animal?

If you answered no to any of these questions, please explain why as it would contradict the gay marriage proposal...as anyone should be able to marry...and besides, they're not hurting anyone.

The gays being married are both adults...Children don't have full rights because it is assumed that they are not of a mental capacity to make informed choices.

The animal is not a Human...and I doubt there is anyway that the animal could consent...

Just a question about your objection to it...are they based on personal religious beliefs? Or is there something else?

 

[Daheavy1]

I'm opposed on both scientific and religious beliefs.

Kingbill....question for you. Who are we to decide at what age a child becomes an adult? Aren't we being agist? Twenty years ago gays weren't accepted at all in our society. Fifty years ago blacks had few rights, and eighty years ago the same for women. When will people of varying ages (old and young) begin to protest? Also, you didn't respond to the question about a person having multiple spouses. Thoughts?

 

[guitarjosh]

And the Constitution specifically provides for a legal system of jurispudence that helps assure it's integrity.

I'm pretty confident that as legal marriages for gays increase around the country, there won't be an associated increase of judges being assasinated

Yeah, calling the Constitution Unconstitutional just smacks of integrity.

By the way, this argument of saying the gays' rights are being violated is nothing but a straw-man. Gays can marry-someone of the opposite sex, which is the same law that straights have to abide by. This is not a civil rights issue, it is simply about changing the definition of marriage.

 

[tiznow]

only reason this even an issue is due to the fact that society places different standards on married people vs. single people as far as the tax code and other perks that are given....

marriage originates from a religious ceremony

yet somehow over the years we got government involved in the process giving incentives....just like everything else fucking everything up as usual

i know quite a few heterosexuals that could care less about the marriage license and that whole process other than the fact that they get the perks.....