The targets! Political targets, of course...
Posted on 07/01/2008 7:12:41 PM PDT by Baron OBeef Dip
Homosexual-rights advocates have asked California's Supreme Court to block citizens from voting this fall on a measure voters originally brought to the ballot: Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act.
Proposition 8, so labeled when Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified it earlier this month for placement on the November 4 ballot, is a constitutional amendment that states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The amendment was created by voter initiative with the signatures of 1.1 million voters, more than the required 694,354 needed to place an issue on the ballot.
Lawyers representing the ACLU and Equality California, however, filed a petition earlier this month in the state's highest court to strike Proposition 8 from the ballot, claiming the measure is not merely an amendment, but a revision, which a lawyer told WND is defined as a radical rewrite of the Constitution that would drastically upset the social fabric of California and require convening a constitutional convention to approve.
Liberty Counsel founder, Mathew Staver, told WND that if there was any radical rewrite of California's social fabric, it was done last month when the Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the state's definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Free speach at it’s finest, if you are a judge that is.
Even the liberal voters in california know that queer marriage is wrong and the queers know the issue will not be decided in their favor when put to a vote.
Reckon we best stock up on some rope ...
The pink swastika/hammer & sickle strikes again.
Why should anyone be allowed to vote on anything (except to select our decision makers)? Just let our betters (courts, legislators) do our thinking for us. After all, by virtue of their elections or appointments, they are above the rest of us.
How on earth can a court prevent a referendum? Doesn’t the CA constitution have separation of powers?
Bob Barr's best friends trying to subvert the rule of law?!? Say it 'aint so Bob!!!
Caught a few minutes of the Roger Hedgecock show today when he was talking about the libs attempt to shut down the vote on this proposition. He said if the SC did it, they would be recalled. And if they tried to stop that, they would be shot! Vive Revolution!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Referendums don’t matter anyway. Just look at medical marijuana initiatives in Ca, Az, NM, Co, Ak, Id, Mn, Or, Ne, NY, Wa, Me, et. al.
Vote for something in a state election, and have federal piggies like AssCrotch send in his goons.
“Two of the three California Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Ronald George and Associate Justice Carlos Moreno will be undoubtedly be the focus of a 2010 recall or anti-reconfirmation action.”
You better believe it! They are goners! Enjoy your reign while it lasts!
The targets! Political targets, of course...
Source url: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
IN MY OPINION:
Is The Proposed ‘Limit On Marriage’ Initiative Too Late?
By KEVIN NORTE
The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to my analysis, calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’ opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot).
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution.With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:
Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
“ ‘[A]mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).) “[A]n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)
According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution.... In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. “
The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892, is a fundamental Constructional right to “all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
“Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834.
As Justice Moreno noted in a concurring opinion in Californians For An Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 735, 788:
Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 3; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077.)
See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative (art. XVIII, § 3), a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification (art. XVIII, § 2) or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate (art. XVIII, § 1). (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.)
It has been suggested “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. [Citation.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 349-350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; cf. Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
The revision/amendment analysis requires the court “to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme[, as] [s]ubstantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. [Citations.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. [Citations.]” (Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Therefore, Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Leno and Newsome should use their constitutional powers to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the initiative is an amendment or a revision that would revise the fundamental right to marry as it applies to same gender couples because it would remove that right for them and deny gays and lesbians equal protection as it applies to that fundamental right.
(The writer is a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court and has been with the Court since 1991. Norte is currently assigned to Judges Ronald Sohigian and Gregory Alarcon.)
The judges who voted for gay marriage in Ca. Werdegar, Moreno, Kennard, George. Against were Baxter, Chin and Corrigan.
That reads more like wishful thinking to me. What do you want to bet that Kevin Norte supports homosexual marriage?
The Argument that Kevin makes has far more merit in the law and constitution than did the original Supreme Court ruling. I think Kevin is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans.
It's just like a guy wearing a dress to a Halloween party ~ they'll never forget ~ especially if, like Bob, it's a miniskirt.
It's just like a guy wearing a dress to a Halloween party ~ they'll never forget ~ especially if, like Bob, it's a miniskirt.
Vote for something in a state election, and have federal piggies like AssCrotch send in his goons.LOL! I was speed reading over the posts... and for some reason, I saw goons as 'groin'.... XD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.