Arrest the Mayor of San Francisco

[phadras]

immediately... No respect for the rule of law.. You wanna let homosxuals marry then get a law or a referendum passed. Until then he is breaking the law and should be imprisoned...
Geez if we all scoff at the law then it's ANARCHY pure and simple... Hey mayor say I wanna shoot folks in the street.. You are trying to deny my rights to exercise my freedom to stop me...
What this idiot in Frisco has done is just about GAURANTEE a constitutional amendment to secure the institution of marriage for those of opposite sexes only..
On the other hand perhaps Cali will do the rest of the nation a favor and SECEDE FROM THE UNION!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about it!

 

[OCA]

Check out a post from today on the Deep Shame thread. The state person who's in charge of approving marriage apps said that since they were altered they will not be approved and sent back. Maybe i'm wrong but i'm betting that there will probably be a recall effort against this Mayor from the left wnen this happens.

 

[Scourge]

Easy! Personally I'd rather be aware of a gay marriage than be shot.
The spirit of the law is violated if we let people shoot each other. It isn't violated if we let people marry each other. So relax! You could marry your f*cking mailbox and it wouldn't affect my marriage one bit.

 

[wonderwench]

I like mayor Daly of Chicago's comment when he was interviewed about the SF situation. He said something to the effect that marriage has been weakened for years due to divorce. If someone is having a problem in their marriage, they should look at his own situation instead of trying to blame gays and lesbians.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Phadras does have a point about the mayor violating state law, quite aside from anyone how may feel about the gay marriage issue. He's basically usurping the authority of the legislature to enact laws and that of the courts to determine the constitutionality of those laws. I mean really, we can't just have city mayors running around deciding which laws should be enforced and which should be ignored.

 

[wonderwench]

The mayor didn't violate the state Constitution - it has an equal protection clause. The state is using a technicality to reject the marriage licenses. SF subsituted "applicant 1 and applicant 2" for "bride and groom".

 

[jimnyc]

He broke the law, no if's and's or but's!

There are other ways to fix what you think is wrong. Thumbing your nose to the laws you swore to uphold is not the way to go about it.

He should be arrested.

 

[wonderwench]

LOL! He made an interpretation of the law and enforced it according to his reading of the state Constitution. That is what we elect our representatives to do.

I like the fact that a city is taking on the behemoth apparatus. All politics are really local - the centralization of power has damaged individual rights and liberty immeasurably. It's good to see that centralization challenged via a strict interpretation of the founding principles.

 

[OCA]

It was not up to the mayor to interpret the constitution. That is for the courts. Purely on the basis of law and on job description this guy is way out of line. The secretary of h& h.s. is just upholding what the law says, which is she can't accept altered applications. This mayor knows he's in trouble, he just played with the gays lives and emotions purely for votes. I'm not saying he's going to be arrested but this is Calif., its not at all far fetched to say he'll be recalled shortly.

 

[wonderwench]

I seriously doubt that Newsome will be recalled.

He has severely damaged his chances to run for state office, btw. If all he were concerned about is his own political career, he would have been better off doing nothing.

And your are wrong about interpreting the state Consitution. Government is full of little agencies and bureaucracies that precisely what the mayor did: to intepret laws and regulations in order to administer their enforcement.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
LOL! He made an interpretation of the law and enforced it according to his reading of the state Constitution. That is what we elect our representatives to do.

I like the fact that a city is taking on the behemoth apparatus. All politics are really local - the centralization of power has damaged individual rights and liberty immeasurably. It's good to see that centralization challenged via a strick interpretation of the founding principles.

He's not there to interpret the law, he's there to uphold the law. The citizens that vote expect no more and no less from him. He made decisions that it's simply not his job to do.

Anyway, I'm sort of glad he did. His actions all but assured that there will be constitutional amendments and then the gays can kiss their chances away, and then return to their closets.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
LOL! He made an interpretation of the law and enforced it according to his reading of the state Constitution. That is what we elect our representatives to do.

I like the fact that a city is taking on the behemoth apparatus. All politics are really local - the centralization of power has damaged individual rights and liberty immeasurably. It's good to see that centralization challenged via a strict interpretation of the founding principles.

LOL all you want. Just because you find his reasons for doing something illegal and outside his authority you cannot excuse it. What if the law were changed to ALLOW gay marriage but a mayor decided it ran afoul of the constitution and disallowed them? He would be wrong too.

The fact that we have three separate branches of government clearly spells out whose authority it is to interpret laws. It is not the mayor's. Plain and simple. He is wrong.

 

[Bry]

LOL! He made an interpretation of the law and enforced it according to his reading of the state Constitution. That is what we elect our representatives to do.

I like the fact that a city is taking on the behemoth apparatus. All politics are really local - the centralization of power has damaged individual rights and liberty immeasurably. It's good to see that centralization challenged via a strict interpretation of the founding principles.

What you say is true and good, but the courts will have the final say. Here's hoping its not the usual federal slapdown.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
What you say is true and good,

Nonetheless, he abused his authority and broke the law. I can't wait until we find a few that decide to legalize marijuana in their area because they interpret the law differently. (even if that's not their job to do so)

 

[Bry]

maybe you're right, Jim. this is a very interesting example, however. Hypothetically speaking,

if the legislature signs a law, and that law for what ever reason may be deemed unconstitutional, what is the mechanism for briniging that law into question? Isn't it precisely the breaking of said law in order to have it ajudicated by the courts? Moi probably knows something about this...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
if the legislature signs a law, and that law for what ever reason may be deemed unconstitutional, what is the mechanism for briniging that law into question? Isn't it precisely the breaking of said law in order to have it ajudicated by the courts? Moi probably knows something about this...

It would need to be appropriately brought forth in the courts and have them handle it. He did not have the authority to arbitrarily decide which laws he would uphold. Here's a prior post from Moi in another thread:

The problem is, he's not a member of the judicial branch. That is the only venue within which challenges to the constitutionality of laws is acceptable. No person, specifically charged with the enforcement of the law, can effectively decide which of those laws he will or will not defend.

He doesn't have to like the law ...all he has to do is enforce the law. Nothing would have prevented him from advocating for a CHANGE in the law in the appropriate fashion.

By usurping the authority, this mayor is no different from any criminal in the state. He did that which is strictly forbidden by law. That makes him a criminal. There is a reason that there is a separation of the three powers of government, whether they be state or federal.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
maybe you're right, Jim. this is a very interesting example, however. Hypothetically speaking,

if the legislature signs a law, and that law for what ever reason may be deemed unconstitutional, what is the mechanism for briniging that law into question? Isn't it precisely the breaking of said law in order to have it ajudicated by the courts? Moi probably knows something about this...

How did you feel about it when Judge Roy Moore was doing the same ?

 

[Bry]

I agree, but if he broke the law, then he would be tried in court, and if the court decided that the law which was broken was unconstitutional, then retroactively, no law will have been broken.

As far as I know, courts don't review constitutionality of laws arbitrarily. An actual case must be brought before them before the constitutionality can be examined.

 

[Bry]

How did you feel about it when Judge Roy Moore was doing the same ?

Is that the judge with the ten commandments? As far as I know, that case was handled more or less along the lines that I just outlined. But I really don't know if enough to opine.

If you're asking for my feelings, I felt the guy was a bit of a twit, but my feelings are irrelevant to the governmental procedure which finally prevailed.