Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by EricNau, Dec 19, 2008.
Showed this article to my Dad, and he said, "You never could trust Jerry Brown. I didn't trust him when he was governor, and still don't trust him now."
Thought that article actually defined us fairly.
I'm...surprised, excited, and feeling positive about this again.
The question is, is the Yes on 8 Campaign going to be arguing in court alone now? Is Jerry Brown going to be against them, or is he going to be a "friend of the Court" only?
So many uncertainties...
Erm, the CA Supreme Court is appointed and doesn't have to be elected, correct? There's a reason that, at the federal level, the Supreme Court is far removed from the democratic process. It's to prevent "tyranny of the majority", which can, and has, led to minorities (of all sorts) being denied rights.
It still amazes me that CA's voter initiative allows constitutional amendments to pass with only a simple majority (CA people, do you know if it would pass with only a plurality? That would be even worse). Compare that to the US constitution, which requires 3/4 of all state legislatures.
It's complicated; they are appointed by the governor, however, are then "confirmed by the public" during the next general election. Every 12 years they are subject to a vote of the people.
Can you have a plurality for a Constitutional amendment? It's either a yes or no vote; one side has to have a "majority."
Perhaps we should merge these two threads?
I'm afraid that might become confusing, given how both stories are polar opposites. Additionally, since the stories weren't conjoined from the beginning, it may not be clear which comments apply to which story.
Well, at least this is good news. How could they possibly let this stand? Whose rights would be next to be voted away?
Hopefully the religious.
...I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Please don't crucify me.
Ugh- it's tempting, but I would never do that. I wish they would extend us the same courtesy.
Well, if you want to infringe on people's liberty, then it appears you were right.
The whole idea of compelling a mass divorce between legally married couples is surely too grotesque to be enacted. The law should at least try to avoid being asinine.
his request shouldn't hold any more weight than any other citizen requesting the same thing.
Should a judge's opinion hold no more weight than an average person either's?
The Attorney General of California is elected by the people as "the chief law officer of the State" and the chair of the Department of Justice.
The position is not unlike those of the Supreme Court Justices; one is assigned to enforce and administer the constitution, while the others are entrusted with the task of interpreting the constitution. It makes a great deal of sense that the Supreme Court would consider the Attorney General's views when deciding matters pertaining to the state Constitution. He is, essentially, the State's lawyer.
Since both are elected officials charged to protect and uphold the Constitution, I see no reason why the Attorney General's interpretation shouldn't hold some weight in court.
IMO, the American ppl are not competent enough to vote on something like making gay marriage legal. It should be left to the officials to decide.
you mean like president Bush? or even president Obama?
Unless you are a lawyer that knows constitutional law I don't think anyone can make a proper decision.
even the lawyers disagree
I'm talking about a lawyer that has spent years studying the constitution that might have the most knowledge to interpret the founding fathers.
that's what I was talking about too......any discussion of what the constitution says about anything always has a group of those learned legal experts on both sides of the issue