Reply #21: So we still disagree. CA court told Brown the voters could amend the constitution to take away any [View All]

[jody]

inalienable right cited therein.

That ignores the accepted meaning of "inalienable right" or "pre-existing right" as SCOTUS said; "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

SCOTUS' use of "pre-existing" means any "inalienable right" recognized by CA's constitution is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Either SCOTUS is wrong about an "inalienable right" or "pre-existing right" or CA's Supreme Court is wrong.

I'll put my money on SCOTUS.