The Voice of the People Denied

[lusciouschaos]

This was passed this am.

California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

Moments ago the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court's hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature's passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. "How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to "retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters" who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an "illegal ex parte communication with the court." Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people's right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

Regardless of how you feel about Prop 8, it is disturbing that the election process is being subverted so profoundly. The people put this to a vote and they chose to pass Prop 8. I can guarantee that had the Proposition failed, those involved would have respected the will of the people. I am not saying it would never be introduced again but it would have been done using the vehicles to make change already in place.

How is it that 53% of the people voted and their representatives just decide to go ahead with their own lawmaking. Why do we bother to vote? Legal challenges go before the courts starting May 5th.

Honestly, my belief is that if a new vote was held today, Proposition 8 would pass by a larger margin than in November. The people want their vote to be heard and respected.

[pam]

Why even have a voting system then?

[cofchristcousin]

The vote was not binding on the judicial process. They were just putting into the record a protest that constitutional changes cannot be made by a simple majority. and Prop 8 is viewed to have done that.

[lusciouschaos]

Understood. My beef here is that they chose not to represent those who elected them.

[LittleWyvern]

Subverted? If a bill is unconstitutional it's unconstitutional. By all means, somebody could try to amend out of existence that part of the California Constitution that makes Prop 8 unconstitutional in the opinion of the Supreme Court of California, but let's respect the system of law as it now stands and not disrespect it simply because a decision was made by the system that we disagree with.

[miztrniceguy]

shouldn't this go in the prop 8 thread?

[talisyn]

The vote was not binding on the judicial process. They were just putting into the record a protest that constitutional changes cannot be made by a simple majority. and Prop 8 is viewed to have done that.

Am I the only one that finds it HUGELY ironic that a vote was taken where the majority of the voters expressed disagreement with the vote of the majority of voters back in November

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

The vote was not binding on the judicial process. They were just putting into the record a protest that constitutional changes cannot be made by a simple majority. and Prop 8 is viewed to have done that.

This is a Representative Republic, and the people have a say so with elections if they feel their leaders are not representing them.

This country is NOT ruled by judicial fiat!

[cofchristcousin]

It is a constitutional representative republic.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

[LittleWyvern]

This country is NOT ruled by judicial fiat!

This is true, but the process of judicial review (note the judiciary is not making laws, just reviewing them) has long been the judicial branch's most important check against both the legislature and the people. The Founders trusted nobody with total power, not even the people (see, for example, the filters of consent principle).

It is a constitutional representative republic.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

...and the citizen's power over the government. If the people could add an amendment that contradicted the constitution by just a simple majority vote with nothing to stop them, what would be the point of a written constitution? There are ways to amend state constitutions, and they are made hard to do on purpose.

EDIT: as an added note I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not Prop 8 is unconstitutional, mostly because that's up to the Supreme Court of California to decide, not me. I'm simply discussing theory in this post.

Edited March 4, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

This is the first time I am close to tears for my country. People are so blinded. Now I know what Mormon and Moroni felt. Heartbreaking.

[Islander]

The vote was not binding on the judicial process. They were just putting into the record a protest that constitutional changes cannot be made by a simple majority. and Prop 8 is viewed to have done that.

It is an arrogant and unethical attempt to unduly influence the judicial review process by orchestrating a populist parade.

More and more the legislators in Sacramento feel they can become rulers onto themselves and ignore the people. it is looking more and more like socialism and a dictatorship of the political elites than a democracy.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Islander
(oooops)

[BenRaines]

Legislators in Sacrament? I am sure it was supposed to be Sacramento but Sacrament made me wonder.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

Hopefully we can throw the California Legislators out of office in the next Utah general election!

[Hemidakota]

The vote was not binding on the judicial process. They were just putting into the record a protest that constitutional changes cannot be made by a simple majority. and Prop 8 is viewed to have done that.

Yet it can be binding from a state level? Agh no! Do you even live in California? 2/3 ratification is require to alter the state constitution. Nice try though...

This is incorrect statement. If that was the case I can clearly see you are not in law, our own constitution would be in jeopardy since it is not up to the people of the land and the states in not able to ratify a change in the land constitution and allow the government itself to impose changes.

[Hemidakota]

Legislators in Sacrament? I am sure it was supposed to be Sacramento but Sacrament made me wonder.

Ben Raines

Noticed where the severe drought is located?

[Hemidakota]

It is an arrogant and unethical attempt to unduly influence the judicial review process by orchestrating a populist parade.

More and more the legislators in Sacramento feel they can become rulers onto themselves and ignore the people. it is looking more and more like socialism and a dictatorship of the political elites than a democracy.

Exactly and more by pundits here trying to interrupted the law for themselves.

[cofchristcousin]

Yet it can be binding from a state level? Agh no! Do you even live in California? 2/3 ratification is require to alter the state constitution. Nice try though...

This is incorrect statement. If that was the case I can clearly see you are not in law, our own constitution would be in jeopardy since it is not up to the people of the land and the states in not able to ratify a change in the land constitution and allow the government itself to impose changes.

You are right in that I was wrong. :) The argument seems to be whether prop 8 revised the constitution which requires the 2/3 vote, whereas an amendment only requires a simple majority. The position put forth is that prop 8 took away a fundamental right and the proper and legal way to do that is by way of a constitutional revision. Is this your understanding of the question being debated Hemi?

[LittleWyvern]

It is an arrogant and unethical attempt to unduly influence the judicial review process by orchestrating a populist parade.

It's really the judiciary's responsibility to remain independent of every other branch of government as well as the people. If they allow outside influences to influence their own decisions, they're not good judges.

More and more the legislators in Sacramento feel they can become rulers onto themselves and ignore the people. it is looking more and more like socialism and a dictatorship of the political elites than a democracy.

Remember, it's the judiciary that has the final say as to whether or not Prop 8 will stand, not the legislators. It is, therefore, the judiciary's responsibility to ignore the influences of the legislature and the people and judge on Prop 8 strictly based on the California State Constitution as it now stands.

...and, you do know that socialism is a dictatorship of the workers, right?

[Hemidakota]

Cof, yes.

Littlewyvern, this is expected to go to the national supreme court since there is bias opinions already formed with four of the SF judges. If it does, the Supreme Court will overturn the state and allow the prop to go forth.

[LittleWyvern]

Littlewyvern, this is expected to go to the national supreme court since there is bias opinions already formed with four of the SF judges. If it does, the Supreme Court will overturn the state and allow the prop to go forth.

It would only go to the Federal Supreme Court if somebody appealed the decision by the California Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court accepted the appeal. I'm curious how you're so sure of both the decision of California and Federal.

[lusciouschaos]

The judges chose to overturn the will of the people with the first vote on Prop 22. What is different this time is that Prop 8 amended the state constitution.

I think it will be much harder this time for the judges because in overturning the vote, they are in essence saying that the state constitution is not constitutional.

Most legal scholars regardless of their position on same sex marriage would challenge the justices desire to dilute the state constitution.

They could rule that Prop 8 is not an amendment but a substantive change to the constitution which would require a 2/3 vote of the state legislature to approve.

That one is risky.

There is talk that the issue of same sex marriage will one day end up at the Supreme Court. Currently 44 states have some type of amendment or statute on their state rule books. At this point the issue will be as complicated as Roe v. Wade.

Tomorrow the cases begin.

Here is info to follow the cases live:

Prop. 8 Arguments / CA Sup. Ct. Live on Calif Channel at 9 am, Thurs. 3/5/09

Streaming Source for CA Politics ,

See The California Channel then Click link under "Upcoming Events"

[Maxel]

I'm not an expert on law, but this still makes me very sad. I don't know who screwed up where... but someone did, and now I'm sad because of it.

I have to agree with Book_of_Mormon_Warrior in the fact that I am saddened for our country.

EDIT:I would also like to point out that I apparently used the word 'sad' in a 1:1 word-to-sentence ratio; that makes me sad as well.

[lusciouschaos]

Maxel,

You are not sad just saddened. A temporary state at best.

[Maxel]

lusciouschaos,

Depending on the day I may be actually sad because of this. Sometimes my emotions run away with my life, lol.

Although, it makes one think. How did it come to this? Isn't a democracy founded on majority rule? I understand the implications and need for judiciary review by professionals, but... When those professionals put personal agendas over the voice of the people, something's seriously wrong.