You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #34: The question is whether or not the vote was consistent with the state constitution [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. The question is whether or not the vote was consistent with the state constitution
which is written the way it is precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. There are limits on the application of direct democracy for precisely that reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Prop 8 - Question.. if God forbid, the SCoC upholds the law - can it be appealed Hawkeye-X  Mar-05-09 08:55 PM   #0 
  - If not the present case then sooner or later a case about Gay marriage  dflprincess   Mar-05-09 09:00 PM   #1 
  - No, not in this format. But if a gay couple sued for marriage equality, then  glowing   Mar-05-09 09:32 PM   #4 
     - Since part of the case seems to be about the status of the 18,000 couples married before Prop 8  csziggy   Mar-05-09 10:28 PM   #6 
        - Yes, that would probably work.. but it would have to be about the people, and not  glowing   Mar-06-09 06:11 PM   #72 
  - only if you have MORE $$ than the Mormon church nt  msongs   Mar-05-09 09:04 PM   #2 
  - No, the case deals with issues relating to the California constitution  LeftyMom   Mar-05-09 09:06 PM   #3 
  - If the California Court Upholds Prop 8,  tonysam   Mar-05-09 09:40 PM   #5 
  - though im loathe to say it the recall would probuably be justified  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:31 PM   #7 
  - So which of your rights would you like removed by voters next year?  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:34 PM   #8 
  - no problem, what rights would you rather have 9 people decide for you to have  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:36 PM   #10 
     - Well, deciding that the equal protection clause applies to all of our citizens.  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:42 PM   #13 
     - activist judges ending institutionalized segregation...  libnnc   Mar-05-09 10:44 PM   #16 
     - ideally it would be better if the amendments were made, sort of bomb proof them  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:45 PM   #17 
     - So which of your rights would you like to do without?  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:48 PM   #19 
        - well seeing that guns are already covered by an amendment i think you make my point.  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:52 PM   #21 
           - Yes, I would.  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:55 PM   #26 
           - LOL  libnnc   Mar-05-09 10:56 PM   #30 
           - Wouldn't that be stunning?  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 11:47 PM   #59 
           - on you go and if you get enough people to vote that way  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:59 PM   #32 
              - amendments can be amended  dsc   Mar-06-09 04:18 AM   #68 
              - Yes I too agree with you to a point  Politicalboi   Mar-07-09 09:46 PM   #78 
           - You don't seem to understand that our rights are inherent and NOT decided by the bigoted majority!  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:20 PM   #43 
           - i guess you havent read were i stated i was against the amendment  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:27 PM   #52 
              - You're FOR the tyranny of the majority. The citizenry DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to take ours away.  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:29 PM   #53 
           - A very small group of very rich white guys made that Amendment, not "the people"  LostinVA   Mar-06-09 05:20 AM   #71 
     - Right. Seems to me one way to clarify this Prop 8 thing is if hetero couples  sohndrsmith   Mar-07-09 09:24 PM   #76 
     - The populace DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to take away our rights!  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:18 PM   #40 
     - if its unconstitutional then the court will find that way.  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:20 PM   #42 
        - Bullshit they will. Judges aren't infallible -- sometimes they're bigoted too.  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:25 PM   #50 
     - tell that to the mob in the street looking for the latest scapegoats  jacksonian   Mar-05-09 11:21 PM   #44 
     - Fuck that. My right's aren't up for a vote. Agreeing with that doesn't mean 9 robed  readmoreoften   Mar-06-09 12:59 AM   #64 
  - Screw that bullshit, civil rights should NOT be put up to a vote, period. n/t  Solon   Mar-05-09 10:38 PM   #11 
  - nah we should always allow 9 people to decide what rights we have with no recource to change them  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:41 PM   #12 
     - They were not changing rights.  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:43 PM   #14 
     - Judges already have had that power since, oh, I don't know, about the 1820s or so...  Solon   Mar-05-09 10:44 PM   #15 
        - and the problem is that judges can also take away rights if they are so inclined  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:47 PM   #18 
           - That's insanity, first off, when it comes to federal amendments...  Solon   Mar-05-09 10:49 PM   #20 
              - History also shows that people who put power into a fews hands come a cropper.  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:53 PM   #23 
                 - First off, that power is limited to interpreting the law or testing its validity...  Solon   Mar-05-09 10:56 PM   #27 
                 - okay then educate me  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:58 PM   #31 
                    - "standards under the law" and who interprets whether this was followed or not?  Solon   Mar-05-09 10:59 PM   #33 
                       - jeez you are being obtuse, ill say it again if the vote is legal  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:03 PM   #35 
                          - The Judges don't set the standards, the Constitution does...  Solon   Mar-05-09 11:04 PM   #36 
                          - i think we are at cross purposes here, ill try to term it differently  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:09 PM   #37 
                             - Anyone who dismisses any judicial oversight as "finageling" should really just shut up now....  Solon   Mar-05-09 11:16 PM   #38 
                             - okay ill let you take away my rights to speech, thats cool i dont think you are capable  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:18 PM   #41 
                                - Where the fuck did I take away your right to free speech?  Solon   Mar-05-09 11:22 PM   #45 
                                - ah the last refuge accusations of being a freeper. i simply have a disagreement with you  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:24 PM   #47 
                                - A disagreement that's based purely on your ignorance of how Judicial Oversight works in this...  Solon   Mar-05-09 11:25 PM   #51 
                                - Rights of speech?  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 11:25 PM   #49 
                                   - nope not an american by birth, but by choice so my language usage is slightly different  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:29 PM   #54 
                                   - You language usage is fine, I would have pegged you as an American by birth...  Solon   Mar-05-09 11:33 PM   #55 
                                   - Ok, well that explains a few things.  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 11:34 PM   #56 
                                   - lol no problem i guess i kinda worded what i was trying to say wrong  vadawg   Mar-05-09 11:36 PM   #57 
                             - You think that the bigoted majority voting to take away a minority group's rights is okay?  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:24 PM   #48 
                          - The Constitution of this country DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MINORITY RIGHT TO BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE MAJORITY.  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:23 PM   #46 
                 - That's why we're all dead now.  Starry Messenger   Mar-05-09 10:56 PM   #29 
  - Um, thanks. That's how we lost our right to marry -- the bigotry of the many.  Zhade   Mar-05-09 11:17 PM   #39 
  - So, then slavery and no voting rights for women would be okay with you?  LostinVA   Mar-06-09 05:17 AM   #70 
  - Not really.  LeftyMom   Mar-05-09 10:54 PM   #25 
     - ill defer to your knowledge on this  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:56 PM   #28 
        - The question is whether or not the vote was consistent with the state constitution  LeftyMom   Mar-05-09 11:01 PM   #34 
  - Not if one can successfully argue that Prop 8 violates the United States Constitution,  Hosnon   Mar-06-09 12:19 AM   #63 
  - The CA constitution can be declared unconstitutional.  Angleae   Mar-07-09 09:29 PM   #77 
  - nope  crimsonblue   Mar-05-09 10:36 PM   #9 
  - Ultimately, couldn't the argument be made that the CA state constitution is, in part  flvegan   Mar-05-09 10:52 PM   #22 
  - lol i understood what you were getting at  vadawg   Mar-05-09 10:53 PM   #24 
  - Regarding Constitutionality  Renaissance Man   Mar-05-09 11:45 PM   #58 
  - Why does the Dept of the Treasury define "marriage" then?  flvegan   Mar-05-09 11:56 PM   #60 
  - What do you mean by "breaches federalism"?  Hosnon   Mar-05-09 11:59 PM   #62 
     - What happens if the current court finds that Prop 8 is  Thothmes   Mar-06-09 06:56 PM   #73 
        - Then the SCOTUS has decided Its position. I believe the original question  Hosnon   Mar-07-09 09:14 PM   #75 
  - I think so, yes. An obvious example would be if a state constitution prohibited women from voting.  Hosnon   Mar-05-09 11:56 PM   #61 
  - Great example ..... thank you  TWiley   Mar-06-09 04:20 AM   #69 
     - Not sure if the you left off the sarcasm smilie...  Hosnon   Mar-07-09 09:11 PM   #74 
  - I don't think we'd want it to  shimmergal   Mar-06-09 02:39 AM   #67 
  - Sure it could be, but I doubt they would hear the case  Hippo_Tron   Mar-06-09 01:11 AM   #65 
  - All the times I've seen the "Yes on 8" people celebrate their "victory"  t0dd   Mar-06-09 02:08 AM   #66 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC