The right of the People is dead. Clear Proof

Posted by ogr8bearded1 11 years, 4 months ago to Government
26 comments | Share | Flag

When I heard the DOMA being struck down, the wording seemed to indicate that a State could make their choice. Then the SCOTUS effectively struck down Prop 8, a legally passed amendment because the People have no legal standing to defend the law? We have just been told we are nothing, that our choices have no meaning and we will not be heard. What was it I read somewhere? When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.....


All Comments

  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would agree with you had homosexuals chosen another definition for their union. As well, it forces one group of people to provide benefits for another group of people they may feel morally compromises them. I want to distinguish here from providing benefits as businessperson to gay partners vs an employee with different political views. There is a clear distinction.
    I also want to state there is no restoration of "rights" to the gay couple. The state recognizes marriage. It is defined, changing the definition sets a powerful precedent.
    I support gays' rights to legally partner. and for the State (who had no business involving itself in the first place to offer the same benefits through recognition to those unions), but to force private citizens to provide some benefit they do not want to provide is immoral, and should be illegal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 11 years, 3 months ago
    Equal rights for all under law is not a matter open to a state deciding against it. This is actually a very positive affirmation of the rights of all people to equal treatment under the law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LeeCrites 11 years, 4 months ago
    In a recent conversation, I realized a potential reason why the government seems to "hell bent" on pushing gay marriage. Those who oppose it are going to be guilty of a hate crime.

    One thing AS teaches us is that a law is useless unless the "right people" break it. It is simply a law they can enforce against anyone they wish to, any time they wish to, and there is virtually no defense against it.

    It is the "perfect" 10-289 type law that can be used universally to catch the "right people" at the "right time."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the things Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent to the DOMA ruling is: "It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters."

    Can you?

    Ayn Rand is all about calling her political opponents monsters. In a sense, that's all she does; you can't have her Nietzschean ubermenchen without untermenschen to contrast with. Rand is all about the demonization of the majority of humanity -- branded with terms like "moocher" and "looter" and, when John Galt's speech is at its most ridiculous, being nothing less than "anti-life." Yes, communism was monstrous, but that doesn't make everyone who ever opposed Rand on anything a communist. Yet I've been called that here. Why?

    I'd answer that the problem Rand's followers have with understanding their opposition is because books like "Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" don't equip them to. Characters oppose Howard Roark because they're inherently bad people in a conspiracy of bad people, and that's all you need to know. People oppose John Galt because they're bad people in a conspiracy of bad people, and that's all you need to know. How does that prepare you to deal with criticism of Rand's writing? By teaching you to dismiss it all without actually intellectually engaging with it: just say "moocher" and declare yourself the victor. Or else try to simply filibuster away opposition like Galt does, jamming as many words as possible into your opposition's cartoon mouth and scoring the world's biggest victory against your own straw men in one long monologue.

    That's why the chapter Rand is best known for is not a dialogue. It doesn't involve any listening at all by John Galt. It's just a long, long, long, uninterrupted sermon. Why? Because Rand's philosophy doesn't have any ability to honestly engage with its opponents. And why is that? Because Rand's philosophy doesn't even have the ability to *understand* its opponents, and simply labels them as monsters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    it's an unusual exchange. and a welcome one. in the past, name calling and bashing has been the bent
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    C_S I'm confuse once more since finding this: "Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, commented, "In the event the U.S. Supreme Court were to disagree with the Ninth Circuit's determination of the proponent's standing, Clerk Storey's petition for writ of certiorari will provide the U.S. Supreme Court with an alternative basis in which to hear this case because Clerk Storey is a governmental official who has Article III standing to defend the law." Storey is an elected official in California so why was his standing in SCOTUS denied? I can understand why the others were denied, but not him. This quote was taken from http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/14...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is good to see someone here openly discuss issues with C_S.

    He has been hidden for what I have to believe is his inflammatory opening remarks, but once he settles down he has a great deal of legal knowledge, and debates better than most of us.

    Just an observation from this thread....

    P.S. For whatever it is worth, I am a supporter of DOMA!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was in error on the facts. It appears the California Supreme upheld Prop. 8 which was then appealed to U.S. District Court where it was struck down. At this time proponents appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court if the proponents were authourised to appeal and were told that under California law they were. The SCOTUS says that the Ninth Circuit was wrong regardless of what the California Supreme Court said and that the proponents had no standing. Therefore they vacated the Ninth Courts decision which effectively upheld the District Courts decision of Prop. 8 violating the 14th Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "If it is IN the constitution then ipso facto it HAS to be constitutional."

    It was not struck down for violating the California constitution. It was struct down by a California court for violating the US Constitution. It modified the California constitution, but states are not free to have their constitutions violate the US Constitution. The California court recognized that and struck down the amendment.

    Again, don't take my word for it. Read what the Supreme Court wrote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Kennedy also says in his minority dissent: "What the court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government," he said. "The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century. ... In California and the 26 other states that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern themselves. The court today frustrates that choice."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it cannot. If it is IN the constitution then ipso facto it HAS to be constitutional. If you wish to say Federal trumps State, then clearly this IS a case for the Federal Judiciary to decide and the State courts are the ones who had no standing to even hear the case in the first place.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As Kennedy noted, the precedent was set a long time ago. This is not a new thing by any means.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just one point: you are citing Federal Constitutional Amendments, not state.

    I am still researching, but I will declare that I am OK with the Federal Supreme Court passing decisions back to the states...and Prop 8 may be just one of these.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    An amendment can both be legally passed *and* unconstitutional. What is or isn't constitutional isn't up to the Legislature to decide. It's up the the Judiciary. That's about as basic a fact as there is in constitutional law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Read it for yourself. You'd be surprised how clear and readable SCOTUS rulings are, if you've never read them before.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. Both the rulings were in effect state's rights rulings. The Prop 8 ruling said that John Boehner and the hapless loons of the House of Representatives had no standing on a state referendum. And the DOMA ruling said that the Feds could not alter a state's definition of marriage -- if the people of New York want same-sex marriage, which they do, it's not the Fed's job to tell them they can't have it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is exactly what I am saying. If this is the way it works then we should find the following unconstitutional: 13th Amendment (slavery was already recognised as legal in Constitution due to 3/5ths compromise), 16th Amendment (taxes had already been deemed to have to be in proportion to census), 17th Amendment (Senators are appointed, not elected under Art.1 sec 3), 20th Amendment(the dates for elections and assumption of office already established) 21st Amendment (since the legality or illegality of alcohol was not covered in Constitution, then the 18th Amendment can stand but not its repeal)

    See what trouble we get into when we decide we can say a legally passed amendment is unconstitutional?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "In other words, by striking it down the State court ignored the fact it was now part of the Constitution of California."

    No, it had already been struck down in District Court. It was no longer part of the California Constitution. The Supreme Court decided not to interfere with that decision, and that's why the District Court ruling stands.

    "The People amended their Constitution, not the State. So who here has the best argument for standing?"

    The people of California weren't the people who sued. It wasn't the people of California who brought the case to the Supreme Court. It was the US House of Representatives. It was the House of Representatives' "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" -- that is, a federal-level, not state-level group -- that was found to have no standing. Thus it was A = the US House of Representatives thinking B = the District Court ruling striking down Prop 8 was hurting C, the people of California.

    Find the actual text of the decision, and you'll see this spelled out very plainly.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your remarks suggest that California's Supreme Court ruled that the Prop 8 amendment was, in itself, unconstitutional. It seems that the California Governor, or AG, accepted this.... If so, it would seem to be an internal state issue.

    But: Mark Lavine is talking about this as I type, and I am gong to try to hear him out. I plan to do some more digging, and will gladly reverse my first post if I am even close to being wrong!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago
    This was an amendment to the State's Constitution and not a statute. In other words, by striking it down the State court ignored the fact it was now part of the Constitution of California. If you can't amend a constitution by ballot box through the legal channels then you have no redress by vote or court.

    What the Tenth Amendment says is that those rights not given to the Federal government and not denied to the States reside in the State OR the people. So seems to me both have standing. The People amended their Constitution, not the State. So who here has the best argument for standing?

    This is not a case of A thinks B has harmed C. It is a case of A thinks B has harmed B. A(The People) are saying B(The State) is not following the Constitution of B(The State.) So what does SCOTUS say? That B(The State) has to say it has a problem. That's like asking a drug addict if he has an addiction and believing him when he says no.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    C.S. was right in his last hidden comment about why Prop 8 was not ruled on.

    The California supporters of Prop 8 has their 'beef' with their state government, and their case should have been upheld by California's highest court. California is a nightmare for any sane, and reasoning, person and their only correct course is to vote the tone-deaf politicians out.

    In short: SCOTUS didn't side with anyone as to Prop 8, they just ruled that it was a state's problem, and as such, needed to be resolved by that state's courts and ballot boxes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "By ruling that only States and not the People have a right to bring suit is a clear violation of everyone's rights."

    You're misunderstanding the very simple issue of standing. The Supreme Court did *not* say that in general people have no right to sue. What they said, very specifically, is that if A thinks B has harmed C, A can't sue B on C's behalf if C has refused to sue. There is nothing new here. In fact, Justice Kennedy said exactly this in the decision: "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. We decline to do so for the first time here."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago
    To: C_S whose comment is hidden.
    I really don't care what the subject is about in this ruling. What I care about is whether law is followed. I have just been told that my First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and my Tenth Amendment Right also is being ignored. By ruling that only States and not the People have a right to bring suit is a clear violation of everyone's rights. I expect rulings to be made on the basis of law, not to ignore the law entirely in order to avoid presenting their own majority and minority opinions on a case.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo