Why Wasn't The CA Supreme Court Asked To Rule On Constitutionality Of Prop 8?

[KittyWampus]

My understanding, after reading multiple threads is that the case that was brought, and which the SC of CA just ruled on asked whether Prop 8 was an amendment or addition to the CA State Constitution.

For that reason, the judges couldn't make a broader ruling and say it was, in fact, unconstitutional.

Can anyone explain why this narrow strategy was chosen?

And if a case CAN be brought to the same court asking them to consider Prop 8's constitutionality?

I apologize if any of the above is grossly incorrect. Just trying to get a handle on actual facts.

[Q3JR4]

1. I think it has to do with the fact that

prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment. It would be sticky for a court constrained by a constitution to rule on changes to that constitution. Whether or not they disagree with it, I would say they have to enforce it. That being said if there are procedural arguments to be made on the issue, that's where an amendment can be set aside.

Q3JR4
Not a constitutional scholar and quite possibly could be talking out his ass.

[HamdenRice]

2. It's been pointed out already but a constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional

It's the constitution that determines what is constitutional. So they focused on the procedure by which the constitution was amended.

However, a state constitution can be unconstitutional under the federal constitution. But at present there are no US Supreme Court cases under the federal constitution on this issue that they could have relied on.