Proposition 8: Opening up the picture of revision
Justice Joyce Kennard asks a key question about whether the court has ever held that a constitutional revision must involve solely a sweeping change to the organizational structure of state government. Up to this point, the only cases in which the court has found a law to be an illegal revision have involved long, complicated changes to the organization of government; in order to find Proposition 8 a revision, it would have to decide that a narrow change to civil rights would also constitute a revision.
The answer, she suggests, is no. Christopher Krueger, representing Attorney General Jerry Brown, argues that Proposition 8 is an amendment, but an illegal one. Just to make it clear, Brown wants Proposition 8 struck down, but on the grounds that it revokes an inalienable right without a compelling cause. Krueger's argument against revision is that the court hasn't ruled that way in the past.
Photo: AP
"Majority" is the definition of democracy. "Tyranny of the majority" is the definition when you are in the minority. Every 4 years 48 to 49% of the population can say that. Presumably, when Ms. Weldon is in the majority, it's behavior is benign and beneficial. Only when she is not is it tyrannical.
Posted by: Randall Hiller | March 05, 2009 at 05:21 PM
What's more valuable: democracy or nomenclature?
Posted by: Ed | March 05, 2009 at 12:09 PM
A pure democracy can be illustrated by the old story of eight wolves and a sheep voting on the lunch entrée. If our state supreme court upholds tyranny of the majority, I would like to propose some more marital nullifications.
1. Anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence, child abuse, not paying child support and alimony on time. After all, we do not let convicted drunks drive.
2. Why not disallow marriage for anyone for whom Megan’s Law applies. Perhaps we should look at other felons as well. Why support criminals breeding criminals?
3. While we are on the subject of criminals. I think there is an argument for excluding gang members and illegal aliens from societal support for their marriages.
4. The sanctity of marriage seems threatened by those who marry often. I could see setting a maximum for failed marriages.
5. The world itself is threatened by overpopulation. It is foreseeable that a future use of the initiative process would to be to ban marriage for those whose religion or culture does not lead to “Responsible” family planning. Perhaps if a couple has too many children, the citizens of the future may nullify their marriage.
The tyranny of the majority is a slippery slope when minority rights are not protected from the initiative process.
Posted by: Pauline Weldon | March 05, 2009 at 11:14 AM