Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 134 of 134
  1. #131  
    Senior Member samurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Because it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. How can that be unconstitutional if it is a change to the state's constitution?
    100% correct. Their complaint before was that the law violated the state constitution. So the state constitution was changed. At this point, the court's job should be over and done with. They issued their ruling and the people of the state corrected the conflict. If they find some other excuse now to overturn a state constitutional amendment, that's just sour grapes.

    And here's a big point:


    Should the body whose job is to decide whether laws are constitutional have the power to eliminate or edit the constitution itself? Can the Supreme Court unilaterally declare that part of Constitution no longer applies and cross it out? And if the state SC can do that to this amendment, what's to stop the USSC from simply over-ruling the Constitution and saying that some of the amendments to it also no longer apply, like say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment?
    The problem in the next four years will be not just that the president of the United States serially does not tell the truth. Instead, the real crisis in our brave new relativist world will be that those who demonstrate that he is untruthful will themselves be accused of lying. - Victor Davis Hanson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #132  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    ^^^^ werd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #133  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Because it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. How can that be unconstitutional if it is a change to the state's constitution?
    That is exactly what Ken Star argued. The justices appeared to be leaning toward agreeing. We'll see.

    The 18,000 marriages won't be annulled--that was pretty clear durning the oral arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #134  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by samurai View Post
    100% correct. Their complaint before was that the law violated the state constitution. So the state constitution was changed. At this point, the court's job should be over and done with. They issued their ruling and the people of the state corrected the conflict. If they find some other excuse now to overturn a state constitutional amendment, that's just sour grapes.

    And here's a big point:


    Should the body whose job is to decide whether laws are constitutional have the power to eliminate or edit the constitution itself? Can the Supreme Court unilaterally declare that part of Constitution no longer applies and cross it out? And if the state SC can do that to this amendment, what's to stop the USSC from simply over-ruling the Constitution and saying that some of the amendments to it also no longer apply, like say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment?
    It's a little more complicated than that--there is a difference between an amendment and revision to the constitution. A constitutional revision can only be made by the legislature.

    They are doing their job--deciding whether or not Prop 8 is legal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •