California's Prop 8 Denying Homosexual Marriage Ruling

The California voters ban on same-sex marriage was ruled un-constitutional. Now it will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and once there will go onto the Supremes.

Both of which should refuse to hear it on appeal since the States retained the sovereignty to decide the issue of what would, or would not, constitute marriage in their State. Of course they won't do that, they'll claim authority to decide as a result of the 14th Amendment - a new law for a new day and all that sort of rubbish.

It will be amusing to see the rational upon which the highest court in the State of California decided that the citizens of that state, from whom all power to govern is derived, do not have the authority to amend their own constitution.

Edited to add - ooops - looks like it was a federal court, not a state one, that said the citizens of California, from whom all power to govern in California is derived, couldn't amend their own constitution - my bad.

Yes, once again the courts correctly decided that one group of citizens doesn't get to take a vote to take away the rights of another group of citizens just because they don't like them.

Anybody remember Colorado's Amendment 2?

PrintSmith wrote: Both of which should refuse to hear it on appeal since the States retained the sovereignty to decide the issue of what would, or would not, constitute marriage in their State. Of course they won't do that, they'll claim authority to decide as a result of the 14th Amendment - a new law for a new day and all that sort of rubbish.

It will be amusing to see the rational upon which the highest court in the State of California decided that the citizens of that state, from whom all power to govern is derived, do not have the authority to amend their own constitution.

Edited to add - ooops - looks like it was a federal court, not a state one, that said the citizens of California, from whom all power to govern in California is derived, couldn't amend their own constitution - my bad.

You are correct, the Constitution from which all power to govern in not only California but all other US states and territories prevents the majority from discriminating against the minority.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Both of which should refuse to hear it on appeal since the States retained the sovereignty to decide the issue of what would, or would not, constitute marriage in their State. Of course they won't do that, they'll claim authority to decide as a result of the 14th Amendment - a new law for a new day and all that sort of rubbish.

It will be amusing to see the rational upon which the highest court in the State of California decided that the citizens of that state, from whom all power to govern is derived, do not have the authority to amend their own constitution.

Edited to add - ooops - looks like it was a federal court, not a state one, that said the citizens of California, from whom all power to govern in California is derived, couldn't amend their own constitution - my bad.

You are correct, the Constitution from which all power to govern in not only California but all other US states and territories prevents the majority from discriminating against the minority.

So the majority of voters, the 99% can't choose to give the 1% a 90% tax code? So a progressive tax system would be illegal too? Since a small minority pay most of the taxes.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Both of which should refuse to hear it on appeal since the States retained the sovereignty to decide the issue of what would, or would not, constitute marriage in their State. Of course they won't do that, they'll claim authority to decide as a result of the 14th Amendment - a new law for a new day and all that sort of rubbish.

It will be amusing to see the rational upon which the highest court in the State of California decided that the citizens of that state, from whom all power to govern is derived, do not have the authority to amend their own constitution.

Edited to add - ooops - looks like it was a federal court, not a state one, that said the citizens of California, from whom all power to govern in California is derived, couldn't amend their own constitution - my bad.

You are correct, the Constitution from which all power to govern in not only California but all other US states and territories prevents the majority from discriminating against the minority.

So the majority of voters, the 99% can't choose to give the 1% a 90% tax code? So a progressive tax system would be illegal too? Since a small minority pay most of the taxes.

The Constitution was amended to specifically address that issue.

And if the general government wants oversight to define what is, or is not, marriage, then it must be amended once more to delegate to them that authority.

Amendment 16 granted the general government the ability to levy and collect a tax on income, which was unclear until that point as to whether or not such a power was delegated to it by the States when they ratified the Constitution. The States possessed the power to govern well before the Constitution was written Dog, and they still possess the power to govern, given to them by their citizens, who retain the right to abolish or alter it at any point in time. The power to govern possessed by the States does not come from the Constitution, the delegated powers assigned to the general government are what the Constitution contains, not the powers of free, independent and sovereign States.

The government does not need any further authority to address discrimination by the state.

The other question was whether or not a progressive tax rate was constitutional, and I correctly pointed out that the Constitution was amended to address that point. The remainder of your rant about sovereign states is merely your opinion, as the Constitution declared federal law to be supreme. Perhaps you should go back to your previous rants about incorporation of the bill of rights into the states before you presume to declare what the powers of the "free, independent and sovereign states" baloney.

Entertaining, from a spectator-sport perspective though...

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion. "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

I'm waiting for "victimhood of the majority" to start....

Something the Dog Said wrote: The government does not need any further authority to address discrimination by the state.

The other question was whether or not a progressive tax rate was constitutional, and I correctly pointed out that the Constitution was amended to address that point. The remainder of your rant about sovereign states is merely your opinion, as the Constitution declared federal law to be supreme. Perhaps you should go back to your previous rants about incorporation of the bill of rights into the states before you presume to declare what the powers of the "free, independent and sovereign states" baloney.

We could delve into whether or not 2/3 of the states voted to submit the 14th Amendment for ratification and whether or not the federal government had the right to require ratification of it by a state before that state would once again be represented in the general Congress if you'd like.