Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[PaintMyHouse]

Without even realizing that changing demographics means, automatically, that gays will get no protection and same sex marriage will again be banned!

Utter crap, since that door only swings one way here, towards more equality.

 

[Silhouette]

Without even realizing that changing demographics means, automatically, that gays will get no protection and same sex marriage will again be banned!

Utter crap, since that door only swings one way here, towards more equality.

NOT when it comes to a minority of BEHAVIORS dictating to the majority. Then we have a shift from democratic rule to fascism.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In a move to block the dominant initiative system [it's dominant to the legislature's Bills] in that state, lawmakers proposed a Bill to remove the language of Proposition 8 off the State Constitution...

No they're not.

As your own quote says they are filing a bill for the Family Code, not the State Constitution.

Thus, if citizens allow this usurping of democracy in contempt of Windsor,

California is not in "contempt of Windsor", Windsor was a federal case about federal law - it had nothing to do with States that said "no".

But guess what? Lawmakers have to approve of every iniative put on the ballot.

Again false. The California Constitution, Article 2, Section 8, Paragraph B shows that inititaives can be placed on the ballot by the people with signatures equal to 5% of the vote count of the last gubernatorial election or 8% if the initiative is an amendment to the State Constitution.

The legislature does not have to approve anything.

I suggest that citizens in California begin a lawsuit IMMEDIATELY to challenge this coup on the grounds that a final decision at the US Supreme Court is needed to legally remove the description of marriage off of California's Constitution.

Again, your own quotes says the bill is to amend the Family Code - which is not the Constitution - a perfectly valid thing to do since SSCM is legal in California because Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

The Proposition 8 statute DOES NOT come with permission for the state legislature to amend or repeal it. And its legality is binding up until the US Supreme Court provides clarification on the Windsor/Prop 8 Decision in 2013.

Actually no. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did not invalidate that decision. No clarification needed.

Actually no. Windsor was about federal law and it's finding that it was unconstitutional, it had nothing no bearing on whether States could say "no" (according to the decision itself) and according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his writing. No clarification needed.




>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Actually no. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did not invalidate that decision. No clarification needed.

Actually no. Windsor was about federal law and it's finding that it was unconstitutional, it had nothing no bearing on whether States could say "no" (according to the decision itself) and according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his writing. No clarification needed.

Question: If "Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional", why did SCOTUS grant a stay on gay marriage to Utah pending appeal for the exact same pleadings California made but was denied?

I'd really like you to directly answer that question in great detail. Because the act of SCOTUS granting the stay to Utah means that they DID NOT make a constitutional finding on gay marriage. Certainly not in favor of forcing upon the states for sure... There is a constitutional finding on gay marraige but it's not the one you were looking for. See Windsor for details. And it's Windsor that litigants from California will be citing in appealing this grotesque infringement upon democratic rule in their state this week.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually no. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did not invalidate that decision. No clarification needed.

Actually no. Windsor was about federal law and it's finding that it was unconstitutional, it had nothing no bearing on whether States could say "no" (according to the decision itself) and according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his writing. No clarification needed.

Question: If "Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional", why did SCOTUS grant a stay on gay marriage to Utah pending appeal for the exact same pleadings California made but was denied?

I'd really like you to directly answer that question in great detail.

Because they are totally different cases.


In Prop 8 the District court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS accepted the case but refused to address the core question about whether States can discriminate based on gender under Civil Marriage laws. They "punted" by dismissing the case based on "Standing", they could have vacate BOTH the Circuit Court ruling and the District Court ruling based on an error under the application of the law. But they choose not to do that. They allowed the District Court ruling to remain the final word.

The difference between California and Utah, as it pertains to the stay is that California accepted the ruling of the District Court Judge and decided NOT to appeal. In the Utah case the State DID to appeal. As such the court issued a stay while the case is being adjudicated.

With no one that had standing appealing the California case, there was no "stay" to issue.

Because the act of SCOTUS granting the stay to Utah means that they DID NOT make a constitutional finding on gay marriage.

Never said they did (i.e. that the SCOTUS made a constitutional finding on SSCM). It was the District Court that made the finding, it was the SCOTUS that allowed that ruling to stand.

Certainly not in favor of forcing upon the states for sure...

No, it's "not for sure" as they haven't ruled on the issue. (And no Windsor was not a ruling on whether States could discriminate against homosexuals in the area of SSCM, Windsor was a Federal question not a State question.)

There is a constitutional finding on gay marraige but it's not the one you were looking for. See Windsor for details. And it's Windsor that litigants from California will be citing in appealing this grotesque infringement upon democratic rule in their state this week.

Sorry no Windsor wasn't want you try to portray it to be. Do you think you have more legal knowledge than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who noted that Windsor DID NOT make any ruling about a States ability to say "no" and that Windsor was only about Federal law.

Maybe they should also cite the grotesque infringement upon democratic rule which resulted from the State of Alabama voting to ban interracial marriages to amend their Constitution. An action that was invalidated in the Loving decision.

Maybe they should also cite the grotesque infringement upon democratic rule which resulted from the State of Colorado voting to target homosexuals for invidious treatment to amend their Constitution. An action that was invalidated in the Romer v. Evans decision.



You may remember from civics, we are a Constitutional Republic where people have rights and the majority doesn't get to take away rights with a 50%+1 vote.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Actually no. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did not invalidate that decision. No clarification needed.

Actually no. Windsor was about federal law and it's finding that it was unconstitutional, it had nothing no bearing on whether States could say "no" (according to the decision itself) and according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his writing. No clarification needed.

Question: If "Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional", why did SCOTUS grant a stay on gay marriage to Utah pending appeal for the exact same pleadings California made but was denied?

I'd really like you to directly answer that question in great detail.

Because they are totally different cases.


In Prop 8 the District court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS accepted the case but refused to address the core question about whether States can discriminate based on gender under Civil Marriage laws. They "punted" by dismissing the case based on "Standing", they could have vacate BOTH the Circuit Court ruling and the District Court ruling based on an error under the application of the law. But they choose not to do that. They allowed the District Court ruling to remain the final word.

The difference between California and Utah, as it pertains to the stay is that California accepted the ruling of the District Court Judge and decided NOT to appeal. In the Utah case the State DID to appeal. As such the court issued a stay while the case is being adjudicated...

>>>>

Both Utah and California officials who swear an Oath to protect the dispensation of law plead for a stay based on their state having enacted a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only; and that those laws were enacted as the People of those respective states legislated via their vote.

California was inexplicably denied that stay. Utah was granted it. And since SCOTUS may not treat the different states differently; ie the validity of how laws are enacted there, their stay-controversy is unequal treatment of the states.

Since California officials currently contemplating removing the right of the initiative system in their state are fully aware of the stay granted in the case of Utah, they have ample knowledge to know that the "constitutional finding upholding gay marriage as a right" is not a done-deal and that it looks like in fact that states get to decide.

That's why they are switftly acting to circumvent the anticipated decision at the Highest Level...or at least the potential Decision. And this is their way of trying to overrule in-advance, what they think the SCOTUS Decision on the matter might be.

Because this is an outright coup on democracy, any one citizen of the state of California has standing and right to appeal to SCOTUS to issue an emergency stay in order to preserve the democrat process itself in their state. Each and every single citizen in that state has standing because in their constitution it states plainly and clearly that as to the initiative system, every voter has the unquestioned right to have their vote count. And, that officials in that state may not, as a matter of constitutional law there, alter or revoke initiative law without the express permission of the voters via another initiative they all participate and have a say on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I'll ask you again: why was the stay put on gay marriages in Utah when it was denied to California on the same legal arguments?"

Already asked and denied: move along.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil, what exactly is it about this that is so hard for you to understand?

1. Prop. 8 died when the state didn't defend it and the SC let that stand. No one had standing to go any farther.

2. The AG in Utah does have standing so his case is moving forward, so there is a stay in place until hit makes it to the SC?

That's it, that's all...

 

[Silhouette]

"I'll ask you again: why was the stay put on gay marriages in Utah when it was denied to California on the same legal arguments?"

Already asked and denied: move along.

Any voter in California as a matter of their constitutional guarantees can move SCOTUS for an emergency stay to preserve democracy in that state from overweening officials there.

There will be no "moving on" when democracy itself is threatened.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Question: If "Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional", why did SCOTUS grant a stay on gay marriage to Utah pending appeal for the exact same pleadings California made but was denied?

I'd really like you to directly answer that question in great detail.

Because they are totally different cases.


In Prop 8 the District court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS accepted the case but refused to address the core question about whether States can discriminate based on gender under Civil Marriage laws. They "punted" by dismissing the case based on "Standing", they could have vacate BOTH the Circuit Court ruling and the District Court ruling based on an error under the application of the law. But they choose not to do that. They allowed the District Court ruling to remain the final word.

The difference between California and Utah, as it pertains to the stay is that California accepted the ruling of the District Court Judge and decided NOT to appeal. In the Utah case the State DID to appeal. As such the court issued a stay while the case is being adjudicated...

>>>>

Both Utah and California officials who swear an Oath to protect the dispensation of law plead for a stay based on their state having enacted a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only; and that those laws were enacted as the People of those respective states legislated via their vote.

No they didn't. After the District Court Judges Ruling California State Officials with standing didn't appeal the case.


A clerk in an office does not have "Standing" when the Governor is the one being sued.

California was inexplicably denied that stay.


No they weren't. The officials with standing decided not to appeal.

A clerk in an office does not have "Standing" when the Governor is the one being sued.

Utah was granted it.

Correct, because officials with standing appealed the decision.

And since SCOTUS may not treat the different states differently; ie the validity of how laws are enacted there, their stay-controversy is unequal treatment of the states.

No it's not "unequal treatment".

In one case the State didn't request a stay. Since none was requested, none was issued.

Six years later in a different case, the State officials with Standing DID request a stay and received it.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

"I'll ask you again: why was the stay put on gay marriages in Utah when it was denied to California on the same legal arguments?"

Already asked and denied: move along.

Any voter in California as a matter of their constitutional guarantees can move SCOTUS for an emergency stay to preserve democracy in that state from overweening officials there.

There will be no "moving on" when democracy itself is threatened.

No they can't.


Prop 8 is an example. The State was the one sued and after defending it in court they accepted the ruling of the District Court Judge and decided not to appeal.

Civilians and lower clerks tried to appeal, they didn't have Standing and their cases were dismissed.


>>>>



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

"I'll ask you again: why was the stay put on gay marriages in Utah when it was denied to California on the same legal arguments?"

Already asked and denied: move along.

Any voter in California as a matter of their constitutional guarantees can move SCOTUS for an emergency stay to preserve democracy in that state from overweening officials there.

There will be no "moving on" when democracy itself is threatened.

No they can't.


Prop 8 is an example. The State was the one sued and after defending it in court they accepted the ruling of the District Court Judge and decided not to appeal.

Civilians and lower clerks tried to appeal, they didn't have Standing and their cases were dismissed.


>>>>



>>>>

Actually, there was no reason given for denying clerk Dronenburg's appeal in California.

And actually, any random voter in the state of California has a right to ask SCOTUS for an emergency intervention to preserve democracy when officials try to remove or alter an initiative law on the books without voter permission.

And like I said:

Both Utah and California officials who swear an Oath to protect the dispensation of law plead for a stay based on their state having enacted a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only; and that those laws were enacted as the People of those respective states legislated via their vote.

California was inexplicably denied that stay. Utah was granted it. And since SCOTUS may not treat the different states differently; ie the validity of how laws are enacted there, their stay-controversy is unequal treatment of the states.

Since California officials currently contemplating removing the right of the initiative system in their state are fully aware of the stay granted in the case of Utah, they have ample knowledge to know that the "constitutional finding upholding gay marriage as a right" is not a done-deal and that it looks like in fact that states get to decide.

That's why they are switftly acting to circumvent the anticipated decision at the Highest Level...or at least the potential Decision. And this is their way of trying to overrule in-advance, what they think the SCOTUS Decision on the matter might be.

Because this is an outright coup on democracy, any one citizen of the state of California has standing and right to appeal to SCOTUS to issue an emergency stay in order to preserve the democrat process itself in their state. Each and every single citizen in that state has standing because in their constitution it states plainly and clearly that as to the initiative system, every voter has the unquestioned right to have their vote count. And, that officials in that state may not, as a matter of constitutional law there, alter or revoke initiative law without the express permission of the voters via another initiative they all participate and have a say on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Maybe this will help:

"By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”

Roberts was joined in his majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

The judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. While California will likely begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the decision will not have an impact beyond the state's borders, and other same-sex marriage bans across the country will be left intact.

Roberts characterized the defendants as possessing a "generalized" interest in their fight to uphold Proposition 8 while delivering the majority opinion from the bench.

"Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California Law," Roberts said. "We have repeatedly held that such a generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing."

"We have no authority to consider the question in their case," he concluded, noting that the court's role was to address disputes that were "judicial rather than political."

The defendants were "free to pursue an ideological commitment" to their definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, Roberts said."

Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8, Lets Gay Marriage Resume In California

 

[Peach]

Which "traditional marriage description" would that be?

Is that the one which is a union of two people of the same race?

Only "fascists" would allow "mixed" mariages, it appears

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter. They declined to allow standing. But now the rogue officials in CA are attempting to rewrite the state constitution pertaining to initiative law. Ample grounds and standing today exist for an emergency intervention by SCOTUS to stop the defiling of democracy in California.

And if you are from another state reading this, remember, California is the testing grounds for what the LGBT cult intends on expanding to all the rest of the states. So far they've been getting away with it like a steamroller. I'd pay attention if I were you to the systematic unravelling of voters rights in a democratic society. You take away the vote and you've taken away freedom and everything we stand for.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually, there was no reason given for denying clerk Dronenburg's appeal in California.

Actually he withdrew his application to intervene (he could appeal since he wasn't a party in the proceedings), he wasn't denied.

Although he would have been denied as he wasn't a party to the suit which was against the State government and not the county where Dronenburg held office.


County clerk withdraws Prop. 8 petition | UTSanDiego.com



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

"traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial."

game, set, match

 

[WorldWatcher]

It doesn't matter. They declined to allow standing. But now the rogue officials in CA are attempting to rewrite the state constitution pertaining to initiative law.

No they are not. The bill is to correct The Family Code which is statutory law not the States Constitution.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

"traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial."

game, set, match

But this is a different issue. Prop 8 was not removed. It was not found as constitutional or not constitutional. Ergo, the default is that it remains law and cannot be removed or altered until the final clarification is in.

This is a brazen attempt of CA officials circumventing the constitutional provisions that they must seek the permission of voters to change the statute. Therefore, any registered voter can seek immediate redress and emergency intervention from SCOTUS to stay any action that stands to defile the legal and constitutionally-protected process [both in the state constitutiona and federal] of the democratic process.

Any voter has standing on this matter of changing the statute of initiative law without permission of the voters.

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter. They declined to allow standing. But now the rogue officials in CA are attempting to rewrite the state constitution pertaining to initiative law.

No they are not. The bill is to correct The Family Code which is statutory law not the States Constitution.



>>>>

The family law code exists because of the statute below. Family code law does not trump the statute in the constitution in CA. And it cannot stand in conflict with it with specific respect to the definition of marriage. You cannot have two diametrically opposed sets of laws in the same state. One has to dominate and that is the initiative law below. This is the insidious incremental sedition I spoke about in the OP.

The important part as to that fact is in bold below.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

ie the State cannot validate or recognize other types of marriages outside man/woman BY LAW in any civil code or process.