Why the FUCK do we even have a court system if not to serve as a check & balance?

[Hugabear]

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?

I don't give a shit about "voter-approved" this or that. FUCK THAT. Sorry, but there is a very good reason our Founding Fathers did not institute a system of pure democracy, aka mob rule. If we were to rely primarily on the "will of the people", then slavery would still exist in the Confederate States of America - which would still exist, as many people opposed going to war to preserve the union. Hell, the US would have never come into existence, since most people opposed going to war with Britain in the first place.

The courts are supposed to serve as a check & balance against this sort of thing. In this case, the court has completely and utterly failed its purpose!

[MNDemNY]

1. CA must change it's constitution to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority.

[shadowknows69]

4. I don't even think the "majority" even is really the majority

Not if you count ethnic, religious, and sexual orientation (if that is an unnacceptable term I apologize and please educate me) together as a "the minority"

But a small group of WASP fucking Nazis wield a shitload of power for some reason.

[pup_ajax]

6. sexual orientation

"Sexual orientation" is the correct term.
"Gay lifestyle" is the wrong one. :)

[shadowknows69]

15. That I knew

[tjwash]

13. That's because people let them slice and dice everyone into small fucking groups.

The power elite will even slice other white folks into small subgroups if it doesn't server their rhetoric. Then they can use the media that they own, to point out tiny little differences between all of us, so that we constantly stay at each others throats while they rip us off blind, and keep us virtually enslaved.

Very simple principle invented by the Romans (who were the first real multi-racial/cultural empire), that just hapens to work extremely well, and has undergone very little change over the centuries.

[shadowknows69]

17. Funny, I always learned America was a place

Where we were supposed to celebrate and learn from our differences and our diversity. Silly me and apparently so were the idealistic teachers I had.

[AndyfromNC]

24. I totally agree with your point,

but disagree with your history. I think Alexander the Great beat them by several centuries, not to mention several other dynasties in the middle and far east.

Best,

Andy

[nichomachus]

7. Prop H8 was voted in by 30 percent of the registered voters in CA

It wasn't a fucking MAJORITY.

[MNDemNY]

9. The system is flawed. Change it.

I do not at all disagree with you, however, you and I both know the rules. Democracy, in practice, is dangerous. This is proof.

[nichomachus]

11. I know the rules

But people -- in CA anyway -- keep saying "a majority of California citizens." It wasn't a majority of all the citizens. It was a tiny minority. We keep to need driving that point home.

[MNDemNY]

14. Which is why voter turnout is soooo damn important.

The best thing one can do to advance progressive ideas is to turn more and more out to vote.

[Taverner]

2. Tyranny of the majority - - gotta love it

No, I DON'T GOTTA love it

I'm pissed

Fuck my state

Fuck all the stupid evangelical brain dead fucks - I hope they all catch Swine Flu

[nichomachus]

8. It wasn't voted in by a majority

The vote in favor of PropH8 represented only 30 percent of the registered voters in CA.

[Taverner]

12. Yes, but they BECAME the majority

By doing so

I realize they don't represent ALL of us here in CA, but enough of us to spread their vile hate

[anigbrowl]

32. Which is enough, the way our constitution works

Our constitution is broken, but trying to pretend that the vote didn't take place in accordance with constitutional procedures is a dead end.

[merh]

3. I agree with you - it is repulsive.

States enacted segregation laws under the protective cover of "voter approved" and SCOTUS (and some of the state courts) stepped in to overturn the laws because they violated the constitution.

This is the same damn thing and Prop 8 violates the US Constitution and should have been overturned.

[MNDemNY]

10. CA supreme court rules only on CA law.

The 14th amendment question is for the SCOTUS.

[merh]

16. Prop 8 violates the California Constitution

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

And yes, SCOTUS will be the one to decide the 14th amendment since the California courts have refused to recognize the rights as guaranteed by California constitution and the US constitution. (If I am not mistaken, the states are agreed to abide by the US Constitution when they were admitted to the US, it was kinda part of the deal.)

[MNDemNY]

19. Can a amendment to a document be contrary to said document?

I'm not sure.

[merh]

21. Well apparently the California supremes think it can.

But they forget that when California joined the union, it agreed to abide by the US Constitution.

Tell me, in a California criminal cases does the accused enjoy the protections of the 5th amendment or the 6th?

Has the California supreme court ever cited any of the US Constitution as the reason why it reached a decision?

[Milo_Bloom]

23. It can...

BUT only by a supermajority, which this did not have.

This ruling makes no sense to me at all.

[paulsby]

25. yes

for example, the constitution can refer to one group as being 3/5 of a person.

an amendment can change that.

the reality is that, about a century ago, california instituted a VERY powerful initiative process, that allows essentially, the constitution to be changed via majority vote.

this is a result of that aspect of california law.

[MNDemNY]

26. Too much democracy is no good.

[paulsby]

28. i agree

that this is too strong a manifestation of direct democracy.

amending a constitution with a mere majority vote

[jberryhill]

27. Yes

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution negates the "3/5 of a person" language in the Constitution. Prohibition was repealed, etc. The point of providing for amendment is to be able to change stuff.

[paulsby]

29. exactly

and (weirdly enough) the california cosntitution allows for amendment based on a mere majority vote

which is what happened here.

it's whack

[jberryhill]

30. That's really short sighted

You know, that's just dumb. The POINT of a constitution is to prevent tyranny by runaway government OR by impulsive mass sentiment.

Making it malleable on short order as a consequence of one election is just plain stupid.

[paulsby]

31. it was short sighted

but it was enacted about 100 years ago.

[anigbrowl]

33. Absolutely. CA's constitution is like a barrel of gas...

with ballot initiatives being like a book of matches. I am very much in favor of having ballot initiatives, but the way they're implemented in CA is a dreadful clusterfuck.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Double T]

5. In case you hadn't noticed, our entire government............

has completely and utterly failed its purpose. Checks and balances has been replaced with aiding and abetting collusion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Initiative and referendum were among the reforms of the Progressive Era

Other Progressive Era reforms were direct election of U. S. Senators, a federal income tax, woman's sufferage, and Prohibition.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Initiative and referendum are fine, just not a simple majority vote to change the constitution

If initiative or referendum is going to be used to change the constitution then it should require a super-majority.