Are CA propositions analogous to Constitutional amendments?
Nothing other than a constitutional amendment is a constitutional amendment.
States also have their own constitutions, however federal things always override state things. State things always override local things. The higher up law always wins. Even if your state constitution says something, and every single resident of the state agrees with it, if the federal government still overrides. The only way to avoid that is to secede.
If CA prop 8 was used to amend the CA Constitution and DOMA (federal) defines marriage as between a man and a woman how can you overturn prop 8 while DOMA is still a law? Shouldn't DOMA be repealed first?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If it's reserved to the people then the people have spoken.
The people also "spoke" when blacks were prohibited from marrying whites, or even going to the same school as whites as recently as the 1950's. The people aren't always right. The people can be bigots. The people can be uneducated. The people can choose to vote for what best suits -themselves- personally rather than what is best for a certain group of Americans. Where on earth do you think several American minorities would stand today if their rights and equality had been left solely to "the people"? Do you think it's fair to leave the rights of the minority 100% in the hands of the majority? Gee, THAT'S always worked out great.
The country and the law don't work on such black and white terms. There's a reason why we have three branches of government in the first place, you amoeba.
If CA prop 8 was used to amend the CA Constitution and DOMA (federal) defines marriage as between a man and a woman how can you overturn prop 8 while DOMA is still a law? Shouldn't DOMA be repealed first?
If CA prop 8 was used to amend the CA Constitution and DOMA (federal) defines marriage as between a man and a woman how can you overturn prop 8 while DOMA is still a law? Shouldn't DOMA be repealed first?
Courts decide, which they are doing.
How can the court declare a Constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional when it becomes constitutional once it is passed? The current federal law (DOMA) even says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Woman's suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc have all been decided via Constitutional amendments and not the courts. Why should this be any different?
If CA prop 8 was used to amend the CA Constitution and DOMA (federal) defines marriage as between a man and a woman how can you overturn prop 8 while DOMA is still a law? Shouldn't DOMA be repealed first?
Courts decide, which they are doing.
How can the court declare a Constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional when it becomes constitutional once it is passed? The current federal law (DOMA) even says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Woman's suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc have all been decided via Constitutional amendments and not the courts. Why should this be any different?
Think about some things: Was Prop 8 an actual amendment? Why does an amendment "become constitutional once it is passed" as you say? If the people of a state got together and decided to amend their constitution to deny the vote to women, would that be automatically constitutional once it "passed"? What court is this being decided in? Is it a state court or a federal court? Does a state court have subject matter jurisdiction to decide a federal issue? What about that 10th Amendment you like so much? Why would a state be concerned with a federal act abridging a right when it has a colorable 10th Amendment right to grant its own citizens that right? If a federal statute and a state statute are found to be in conflict, does the federal statute always supersede the state statute? Examples you might think about are medical marijuana laws, open container laws, right to die laws, and minimum wage laws. Does federal law supersede state law in all of these cases in all fifty states??
Suffrage and abolition were indeed amendments to the constitution, but when you say that these issues were "decided via Constitutional amendments and not the courts", you ignore a substantial amount of case law, i.e. law decided by the courts.
CA Supreme Court has already ruled on this in Strauss v. Horton (actual opinion is a broken link on the courtinfo.ca.gov site).
As for the particulars of when state laws trump federal laws (and vice versa) I don't know. I would like to know if there are hard rules or if they are open to interpretation. Not just because of this particular issue (for which I have earlier stated my opinion on this forum) but because I would like to know how other issues of this nature should be resolved.
Please don't assume I support prop 8 just because I question the manner in which it is being overturned.
CA Supreme Court has already ruled on this inStrauss v. Horton(actual opinion is a broken link on the courtinfo.ca.gov site).
Why do you think this is relevant?
Please don't assume I support prop 8 just because I question the manner in which it is being overturned.
Is it being overturned? What court is going to overturn it? Why are they going to overturn it? Is the manner in which it is being overturned any different than any other law that has been overturned in history? Maybe you should try to understand those questions first.
You know what's notably missing from that list of "Civil Issue Achievements" that you seem to consider of sole importance in our nation? The granting of Women's fucking Suffrage. Splendid. Clearly, the importance of women in general falls to about the same estimation of importance you have for the homosexual community of the United States, which seems to be nil.
The presence of individuals like you in this country makes me want to expatriate. However, it's equally likely that you're a troll, as well. In which case, you're riding that line between effective trolling and "obvious troll is obvious." Note both those points.
The presence of individuals like you in this country makes me want to expatriate. However, it's equally likely that you're a troll, as well. In which case, you're riding that line between effective trolling and "obvious troll is obvious." Note both those points.
Xandro has to be a troll. No one can possibly be that stupid without trying.
Until Xandro backs up his claims and statements with anything substantial, it would be best for all of us to assume that obvious troll is obvious.
You know what's notably missing from that list of "Civil Issue Achievements" that you seem to consider of sole importance in our nation? The granting ofWomen's fucking Suffrage.Splendid.
That, umm, was actually in there.
In 1878, U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduced in Congress the proposed 19th Amendment, according women the right to vote. Over the next four decades, it was primarily the Democrats who would oppose the measure. Not until 1919, after the Republican Party won majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, did Congress approve what would become the 19th Amendment
But seriously, if you've ever taken even a minimal US History course sometime in your life you'd know that before Wilson, the Republicans (now the conservative party) were the more progressive party and the Democrats (now the more progressive party) were the conservatives.
But seriously, if you've ever taken even a minimal US History course sometime in your life you'd know that before Wilson, the Republicans (now the conservative party) were the more progressive party and the Democrats (now the more progressive party) were the conservatives.
You should also know that before Reagan, religious people didn't really vote. Ministers at crazy evangelical churches and such would tell their congregations not to vote at all. They considered voting to be an acknowledgment of a higher authority other than god. They believed that it was not for man to judge, therefore you should not be justifying that by voting for a government that put itself above God.
But in the early '80s there was a very strong, and successful, effort to get all those people to vote, and to vote Republican. Those religious people who started voting are pretty much the only reason any Republicans get elected. Remember, the South used to be Democrats, like Bill Clinton (Arkansas) and Jimmy Carter (Georgia). Now the South is red as red can be. Why? because the southern baptists and such started voting.
The Republican party wasn't stupid. They realized they needed to keep those religious people voting in order to win anything at all. When Bush the first only got one term, and Clinton became super super popular, they knew they were in trouble. Thus, they changed what they were about. Long gone are the days where Republican meant small government and fiscal conservatism. Instead, the party appeals strongly to social conservatism, even though it has been against it historically. Also, if you look at the budgets of Regan and Bush 2, you will see they are anything but fiscally conservative. Obama isn't fiscally conservative either, but Clinton sure as hell was! He has a budget fucking surplus that W. pissed away.
If The republicans now were the same ones from decades and decades ago, I'd probably vote for them. As it is, they are not. And this is why the party is having a schism. There are those who support the new platform of the party. There are those who only care about political power and money, and couldn't give two shits about policy. Then there are those who are still old school Republicans.
The thing that saddens me the most is that there are some old school republicans out there who still support the current republicans because they are too stupid to realize that the party is nothing like what it used to be. They see the name Republican, and if the name is the same, then it's the same to them.
This hasn't been talked about much, but if you live in Maine, please go vote on Tuesday and vote No on Question 1, which ask is people want to repeal same sex marriage. If you know people that live in Maine, please tell them to go vote.
So now we've lost Maine too. I don't think it's feasible to describe how purely livid I am right now. Almost nothing makes me as angry as when shit like this happens. I feel as if I would have little qualm with taking a sledgehammer to the face of any "Yes" voter who should appear in front of me right now. "Change" my ass.
Forgive me, I'll have something more intelligent to say later.
o now we've lost Maine too.I don't think it's feasible to describe how purely livid I am right now. Almost nothing makes me as angry as when shit like this happens. I feel as if I would have little qualm with taking a sledgehammer to the face of any "Yes" voter who should appear in front of me right now. "Change" my ass.
Yeap, It's hard when you have those conservative PAC's spending millions of dollars...
So now we've lost Maine too.I don't think it's feasible to describe how purely livid I am right now. Almost nothing makes me as angry as when shit like this happens. I feel as if I would have little qualm with taking a sledgehammer to the face of any "Yes" voter who should appear in front of me right now. "Change" my ass.
Forgive me, I'll have something more intelligent to say later.
This is why we're supposed to have a constitution, to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". A majority of Americans were not for interracial marriage when it was instituted, but the constitution protected the rights of the minorities. I have a feeling that gay marriage is an inevitability, but someone is going to have to have the balls to take it to a federal level and make the supreme court make the ruling. It's pretty clear that this is discrimination based on gender/sexual preference, which I believe is a violation of constitutional rights. Like I said, someone just has to have the testicles to call it what it is and make people who are against same-sex marriage/civil unions recognize that they are the same as the racists of forty years ago.
@GTMacRoss: They mentioned something like that on the Daily Show a few nights ago. Something about how the people quoting scripture against gay marriage today would be quoting scripture in favor of slavery a 100+ years. It's fucked up.
Maine has an rapidly growing Amish population. This may have something to do with it.
I woke up early so I could avoid a traffic jam on my way to college, and was watching the news this morning. When I heard about Prop 1 passing, I cried loud enough for my mother to come out of bed and ask what was wrong.
"Voters have a pretty good grasp about what they think marriage should be," said Jeff Flint, the Sacramento strategist for the Yes on 1 campaign. "It's not that they're discriminatory or bigoted. They just draw the line at what they think marriage should be."
Granting rights to some and denying them to others based on gender is discriminatory. GAH!
When I heard about Prop 1 passing, I cried loud enough for my mother to come out of bed and ask what was wrong.
I know it sucks, but don't cry about it. It's a temporary thing. This is a wave that they can't resist for much longer.
In a lot of ways, this is like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. I know that might sound trite, but those people fought hard and suffered many setbacks. They were finally rewarded, but it was only after a lot of people spent a lot of time, energy, and effort trying to acheive the goal. We will acheive our goals in this matter as well, but it takes time to overcome the conservative obstruction machine.
Comments
States also have their own constitutions, however federal things always override state things. State things always override local things. The higher up law always wins. Even if your state constitution says something, and every single resident of the state agrees with it, if the federal government still overrides. The only way to avoid that is to secede.
The country and the law don't work on such black and white terms. There's a reason why we have three branches of government in the first place, you amoeba.
Woman's suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc have all been decided via Constitutional amendments and not the courts. Why should this be any different?
Suffrage and abolition were indeed amendments to the constitution, but when you say that these issues were "decided via Constitutional amendments and not the courts", you ignore a substantial amount of case law, i.e. law decided by the courts.
As for the particulars of when state laws trump federal laws (and vice versa) I don't know. I would like to know if there are hard rules or if they are open to interpretation. Not just because of this particular issue (for which I have earlier stated my opinion on this forum) but because I would like to know how other issues of this nature should be resolved.
Please don't assume I support prop 8 just because I question the manner in which it is being overturned.
The presence of individuals like you in this country makes me want to expatriate. However, it's equally likely that you're a troll, as well. In which case, you're riding that line between effective trolling and "obvious troll is obvious." Note both those points.
Until Xandro backs up his claims and statements with anything substantial, it would be best for all of us to assume that obvious troll is obvious.
But in the early '80s there was a very strong, and successful, effort to get all those people to vote, and to vote Republican. Those religious people who started voting are pretty much the only reason any Republicans get elected. Remember, the South used to be Democrats, like Bill Clinton (Arkansas) and Jimmy Carter (Georgia). Now the South is red as red can be. Why? because the southern baptists and such started voting.
The Republican party wasn't stupid. They realized they needed to keep those religious people voting in order to win anything at all. When Bush the first only got one term, and Clinton became super super popular, they knew they were in trouble. Thus, they changed what they were about. Long gone are the days where Republican meant small government and fiscal conservatism. Instead, the party appeals strongly to social conservatism, even though it has been against it historically. Also, if you look at the budgets of Regan and Bush 2, you will see they are anything but fiscally conservative. Obama isn't fiscally conservative either, but Clinton sure as hell was! He has a budget fucking surplus that W. pissed away.
If The republicans now were the same ones from decades and decades ago, I'd probably vote for them. As it is, they are not. And this is why the party is having a schism. There are those who support the new platform of the party. There are those who only care about political power and money, and couldn't give two shits about policy. Then there are those who are still old school Republicans.
The thing that saddens me the most is that there are some old school republicans out there who still support the current republicans because they are too stupid to realize that the party is nothing like what it used to be. They see the name Republican, and if the name is the same, then it's the same to them.
Forgive me, I'll have something more intelligent to say later.
Maine has an rapidly growing Amish population. This may have something to do with it.
Referendum 71 info.
In a lot of ways, this is like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. I know that might sound trite, but those people fought hard and suffered many setbacks. They were finally rewarded, but it was only after a lot of people spent a lot of time, energy, and effort trying to acheive the goal. We will acheive our goals in this matter as well, but it takes time to overcome the conservative obstruction machine.