Skip to main content

View Diary: Prop 8 legal challenge likely to fail (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that's the best argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laughingriver, Quinton

    putting aside the specific issue (which seems less obvious because of its novelty, and because every court in America would have found the Equal Protection argument frivolous just a few decades ago), how can it be that the state constitution's guarantees for minority groups are only good until a bare majority of the electorate votes otherwise.

    That isn't really a constitution at all, it's an ordinary statute.

    It is not an easy case for the Proposition's defenders.

    What makes it touch for the opponents is that this issue is so obviously part of an ongoing political and social debate, and the courts have sometimes been unwilling to step in.  (But see first paragraph above).

    "Save it for 2050." -- Mark Penn (on Obama's electability)

    by throughaglassdarkly on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your argument, then, would be that there is a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      hidden definition of "constitution" somewhere in the structure of the CA constitution that requires supermajoritarianism despite the clear requirement of only a majority.  I don't think that argument gets very far.

      Sometimes I feed my cat dog food.

      by burrow owl on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that is where the ammendment vs revision. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        issue comes into play.

        You have an equal rights clause, how can that be voided by any group that desires to do so, I mean seriously I could ammend the constitution that group x could not watch fox news if I wanted to.

        Not that I think that would be a bad thing, but seriously why couldn't I say that traditional marriage is only valid between two people who watch fox news?

        What we do for ourselves dies with us, what we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. (Albert Pine)

        by laughingriver on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why couldn't you? (0+ / 0-)

          As long as this is a democracy, why couldn't you?

          Again, barring federal constitutional law, there doesn't seem to be any reason your ban on Faux-watching couldn't be instituted.

          Democracy really is rule of the people; we can turn into law whatever fucking wacky shit we want.

          Sometimes I feed my cat dog food.

          by burrow owl on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site