"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said.
Breaking: California Attorney General Seeks to Nullify Prop 8
- Thread starter sudsmaster
- Start date
Help Support :
pturo
New member
California nullified Prop 31 in the 90's. It was a referendum to deny social services to illegal aliens. It passed by 70%, but was later nullified on a civil rights/equal protection platform. So there is hope.
Referendums should not be used as instruments to deny constitutional rights to certain groups, they are more broadly used for tax inititives, education, things that vote for govenment change that do not violate the inherent rights of certain groups/individuals.
Equal protection under the law, not seperate but equal, is what has been the case law that previaled in Brown v Board of Education which overturned Plessy v Furgeson in our nation.
Now I hope someone in Flordia sues and it goes to the Supreme Court to decide, with California's ruling to set precident on unconstitutional referrendums in our nation.
Referendums should not be used as instruments to deny constitutional rights to certain groups, they are more broadly used for tax inititives, education, things that vote for govenment change that do not violate the inherent rights of certain groups/individuals.
Equal protection under the law, not seperate but equal, is what has been the case law that previaled in Brown v Board of Education which overturned Plessy v Furgeson in our nation.
Now I hope someone in Flordia sues and it goes to the Supreme Court to decide, with California's ruling to set precident on unconstitutional referrendums in our nation.
Not familiar with Prop 31 and google wasn't much help either.
Did you mean Prop 187 of 1994 instead?
That one was not a constitutional amendment. It was overturned in a federal court. I figure the feds had jurisdiction because immigration, a federal matter, was involved.
Prop 8 is a bit different because it doesn't tread upon Federal jurisdiction, and plus it's a state constitutional amendment, and by surface definition any constitutional amendment must be constitutional. Except of course when it isn't.
en.wikipedia.org
Did you mean Prop 187 of 1994 instead?
That one was not a constitutional amendment. It was overturned in a federal court. I figure the feds had jurisdiction because immigration, a federal matter, was involved.
Prop 8 is a bit different because it doesn't tread upon Federal jurisdiction, and plus it's a state constitutional amendment, and by surface definition any constitutional amendment must be constitutional. Except of course when it isn't.
1994 California Proposition 187 - Wikipedia
pturo
New member
Thanks for the correction!
Thanks Sudsmaster, for the correction.
It was 187, not 13 and I was living in the Bay Area at the time and remember mainly the human rights aspects and the protests in LA.
While it did indeed target a "group of people" it was recinded for the reasons you mention- it tried to uspurp Congress and Immigration policy, which is Federal, not state to decide.
I do see an Equal Protection lawsuit going all the way to if not only to the 9th District, but to the Supremes on the same basis as whites can now marry blacks, white children can be in the same classroom as blacks, and that it is legal for a woman to get an abortion anywhere in this country. All of the above was state mandated until challenged. Willy-nilly state by state laws on same sex marriage are hard to uphold or deny from one state to the next when the consitutional stakes are so high, and the denial of them identifies a group of Americans that already have rights under sexual orientation discrimination in many states, particularly Calfornia.
One can't attach religious descriptions or dogma to law. It may well be a sin to have an abortion in some religions. Marriage is not a sacrament of the law, it is only a sacrament of certain religions, and we live in a nation that where the constituion is a work in progress, not a concrete tablet.
A person's sexual orientation should not define nor expressly limit thier rights compared to what the norm of law was considered at the time of Moses or slavery in this nation.
Civil rights should not be doled out individually by states on the basis of sex, religion, political party, race, sexual orientation,country of origin, disability, eye color, skin color, hairstyle or economic status.
All human beings in this nation who are of consent, age and reason, should be entiled to the same benefits of marriage, irrespective of gender.
One is on his own to ask for G-d's blessing under the confines of their own religon, not the lawmaker's.
Thanks Sudsmaster, for the correction.
It was 187, not 13 and I was living in the Bay Area at the time and remember mainly the human rights aspects and the protests in LA.
While it did indeed target a "group of people" it was recinded for the reasons you mention- it tried to uspurp Congress and Immigration policy, which is Federal, not state to decide.
I do see an Equal Protection lawsuit going all the way to if not only to the 9th District, but to the Supremes on the same basis as whites can now marry blacks, white children can be in the same classroom as blacks, and that it is legal for a woman to get an abortion anywhere in this country. All of the above was state mandated until challenged. Willy-nilly state by state laws on same sex marriage are hard to uphold or deny from one state to the next when the consitutional stakes are so high, and the denial of them identifies a group of Americans that already have rights under sexual orientation discrimination in many states, particularly Calfornia.
One can't attach religious descriptions or dogma to law. It may well be a sin to have an abortion in some religions. Marriage is not a sacrament of the law, it is only a sacrament of certain religions, and we live in a nation that where the constituion is a work in progress, not a concrete tablet.
A person's sexual orientation should not define nor expressly limit thier rights compared to what the norm of law was considered at the time of Moses or slavery in this nation.
Civil rights should not be doled out individually by states on the basis of sex, religion, political party, race, sexual orientation,country of origin, disability, eye color, skin color, hairstyle or economic status.
All human beings in this nation who are of consent, age and reason, should be entiled to the same benefits of marriage, irrespective of gender.
One is on his own to ask for G-d's blessing under the confines of their own religon, not the lawmaker's.
