Is it too easy to amend California's Constitution?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Dante, May 26, 2009.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Putting aside the gay marriage initiative in California....

    - what do you think?
     
  2. Pyrite
    Offline

    Pyrite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    243
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +20
    I'm not from California, but it seems to me that the whole point of a constitution is that it's more solid than a simple law. It should take a supermajority to change the constitution.

    Now the hilarious question would be, would such a change be a revision, requiring only 50%+1 of voters?
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    They could change their constitution so that mob rule doesn't change the constitution.

    But what mechanism would be left in place for the voters to push back against the judicial oligarchy??
     
  4. Pyrite
    Offline

    Pyrite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    243
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +20
    If they don't want equality under the law, they can vote by supermajority to write equality out of their constitution. They wouldn't be the first state that has done so.

    I find it disgusting, but it is their democratic right.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    "Equality under the law" is a red herring in this context.

    The criteria of being issued a marriage license is based upon objectively identifiable gender, not by behavior.

    What I find disgusting is the state meddling in the marriage business in any case.
     
  6. Pyrite
    Offline

    Pyrite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    243
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +20
    Skin color is also objectively identifiable. That doesn't mean that discriminating based on it is legally permissible in a system with equality under the law.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Interesting you should bring that up....Licensing was used in Jim Crow states to deny inter-ethnic marriage, and persecute those who wished to marry between the ethnicities.

    So, why is it gays would want to involve themselves with a vestige of Jim Crow, only to turn around and hurl the "bigot" epithet when they don't get what they want??

    The thing about irony is that it's sooooo....well....ironic.
     
  8. Pyrite
    Offline

    Pyrite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    243
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +20
    Aaand you've lost me.

    Let me try to lay this out:
    There used to be laws against blacks marrying whites.
    These laws were eventually struck down as unconstitutional.
    There are currently laws against men marrying other men. (and women marrying other women. Don't want to leave anyone out.)
    Some people are trying to get these laws struck down as unconstitutional.

    I don't see the irony here. What is this "vestige of Jim Crow" gays are trying to involve themselves with?
     
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    The vestige of Jim Crow is the state license itself.

    The laws against denying couples of different ethnicities were struck down....The bad news is that the SCOTUS case didn't call the legitimacy of licensing itself into question.

    That said, the case only ruled in the case of men and women marrying, insofar as their ethnicities were concerned, not because of any sexual behavior...A gay man can still marry a straight woman, or you make up your own combination.

    Mind you, I see no place for any state involvement or granting of permission of statutory marriages in any case. That's something best left to the churches, the common law, and individuals themselves.
     
  10. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    I think that it is too easy to amend the constitutions of SEVERAL states, which has led to entirely inappropriate amendments in my state (Florida). For instance, in our state, we have a constitutional amendment banning the caging of pregnant pigs. A huge issue, you might imagine, in Florida.

    :cool:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

california political system amend laws