Ah-nold on CNN: Prop 8 Is Wrong; CASC Will Overturn

[stopbush]

Good news. He is against Prop 8 and feels that the CASC has already ruled that such discrimination is unconstitutional and will overturn 8.

[enki23]

1. doe ahnold understand the concept of a constitutional amendment?

.

[tekisui]

3. It is against to Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights.

Amendments cannot take away a right that already exists. It will get overturned.

[jobycom]

8. I don't understand

I thought Prop 8 was an amendment. If you amend the Constitution, then you can't declare the amendment unconstitutional, because it is part of the constitution. Is Prop 8 not really an amendment? If it is, how can the state supreme court rule that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

Unless Arnold means that CASC would rule that the amendment violated the US Constitution... That would be interesting, and would have implications for other states, as well, which is why I don't know if they would do it.

And of course amendments can take away rights. That's what they do. One US Amendment outlawed liquor.

[tekisui]

9. It is a revision, not an amendment.

And, the entire Proposition will likely be ruled Unconstitutional. A revision that seeks to take away currently held rights would violate the Constitution. It will never be ratified, which it would need to be to become a "revision".

[jobycom]

10. It's described as an amendment. I don't get it.

Are you saying that even though it claims to be an amendment it fits some legal definition of revision instead of amendment? Is this something special to the California Constitution, because that would make no sense in terms of the US Constitution, or the Texas Constitution as far as I know.

Then again, we don't have simple majority votes on amending the US Constitution.

I hope you and Arnold are right. California's starting to look like Texas. :(

[closeupready]

11. The US Constitution is superior to state constitutions, and Prop 8 violates the equal protection cla

clause of the US Constitution, meaning essentially that California can make its own laws except where they would conflict with the US Constitution.

[jobycom]

23. I know that, but the US Court has never held this to apply to marriage.

IIRC, it's been tested and either rejected or ignored, but I could be wrong on that.

[closeupready]

28. Oh, I forgot to mention - Alaska law trumps US law.

I learned that from Sarah Palin. :rofl:

[Romulox]

30. The SCOTUS has never found sexual orientation to be a "protected class"

entitled to protection under the US Constitution.

It seems unlikely that the current Court would so find.

[AntiFascist]

39. The arguments being made in this subthread are absolutely WRONG...

The California Supreme Court HAS ruled that gays and lesbians are a protected Suspect Class. This is not a Federal issue, nor should it be.

[AntiFascist]

38. This does not need to be taken to Federal Court...

there is also an equal protection clause in the state constitution. This should remain a state issue because the CASC gay marriage ruling is powerful enough to overturn Prop 8. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 was drafted before the marriage ruling.

[closeupready]

12. I'm confused now too, but the difference between a revision and an amendment is

that one of them is a more substantial change to the existing constitution, whereas the other one is a minor change. This is a major change, and that's why it needs state legislature approval.

[GodlessBiker]

13. Yes, it is peculiar to CA Law. Prop 8 supports would like to see it as an amendment, but it isn't.

Article 18 of the state Constitution provides that the document can be changed by amendment or by revision. An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas a revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters.

[jobycom]

25. Thank you, that's the answer I've been searching for. Is this distinction clearly explained?

I mean, is it clear to most objective legal analysts that this would be a revision under specific legal terminology that would unambiguously apply to Prop 8, or is this a legal argument we are hoping works? And how liberal is the CASC? We liberals in Texas have always looked to CA as the beacon of righteousness, but between Arnold and Prop 8, I'm not sure how much faith to put in the West anymore. Is the CASC unabashedly liberal?

[GodlessBiker]

26. No, it is not clear how the CA Supreme Court will rule. We shall see.

[petronius]

33. I wonder if we can amend the Constitution to do away with the amendment process,

or would that be a revision? I really don't like the idea of mucking about with our Constitution by simple majority, especially since our initiative system is so wide open...

[BlueCaliDem]

21. Perhaps this may help, courtesy of Anti-Fascist...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4423010

Herein he explains why Prop 8 is a revision, not an amendment. Very clarifying!

[AntiFascist]

36. No, the issue is that Prop 8 may be ruled to be a revision to the constitution....

please see my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4423010

another big issue that should get Prop 8 overturned is that it did not summarize the effects properly.

On edit: Sorry for the dupe, thanks BlueCaliDem04 above...I should have read through the thread first.

[GodlessBiker]

5. This wasn't an amendment, this was a revision, and needed to go to the State Legislature first.

[enki23]

22. that's a legal argument the good guys are trying to make, yes.

but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be found to be so. i hope it is. i really do. but even if the good guys win that battle, it won't be decided on the basis of whether the state constitution *can* deny marriage rights. we will, essentially, be getting off on a technicality.

[GodlessBiker]

27. It's no more of a technicality than the Fourth Amendment is a technicality for a bad search.

It's following the law.

[enki23]

29. that's a silly reading of what i said.

the intent of the people who voted for this law clearly *was* to amend the constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples. the proposition was put on the ballot with the understanding that it was an amendment. if it is found to be a revision, rather than an amendment, then there was an obvious fuck-up somewhere, because it should never have been on the ballot in the first place.

so, yes, a technicality. the intent of the electorate is clear. the legal technicalities regarding it are somewhat less clear. if this is overturned on that basis, then the will of the electorate will have been thwarted. in this case, i think that's a good thing. but that doesn't change the fact of it.

i suppose you understand something more negative than i actually mean when i say "technicality" than i actually mean here. i suppose that's fair, given how the usual sneering pundit says the word. i mean it in a neutral sense. *technically*, if it was a revision, it shouldn't have been on the ballot at all without 2/3 legislature approval. in that case, a majority of californians would *like* to fuck over gay couples, but would find themselves unable to do so. that's great, and that's what constitutional rights are all about. however, i've little doubt the people of the state very much *will* see it as the more negative kind of "technicality", just as the more hardline law-and-order types see application of the fourth amendment.

[AntiFascist]

40. I disagree with your statement...

the CA marriage ruling was very groundbreaking because it was the first time that gays and lesbians are considered a Suspect Class. In legalize, this means that we are now on the same playing field as other minorities, at least in Calfornia. Prop 8 does not even begin to address this. Also, anything citing decisions in other states against gay marriage does not take this precedent into account.

Furthermore, the marriage ruling also strengthens the institution of marrage by classifying it as a Fundamental Right. Again, Prop 8 does not address this issue. My understanding is that, if you want to take away a Fundamental Right from a Suspect Class then you need to be able to cite specific examples of where it would be obvious that this is necessary. The only way Prop 8 supporters can do this is by trying to defend certain religious freedoms, but religious freedom works both ways because there are churches that support gay marriages.

[msongs]

2. he did NOTHING to help the fight against 8 except make a few discreet statements - just

being an opportunist. he had nothing to lose to support NO on 8 since he cannot run for governor again.

this is just a cheap political ploy in case he wants to run for senate or something.

Msongs

[jobycom]

4. I'm sure his party had ordered him to stay quiet on it

in order to not split the party going into the election. Shame on him for obeying if he really believed it was wrong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. His one statement about being allowed back into CA bedrooms, I thought, was rather effective.

That has to be one scary and effective message to send to libertarian-leaning voters, which are likely the segment of the population we really need to reach to sway support in our favor. It might've been a throwaway line, but I think it's a damn effective one, being that it came from a governor.

On edit: I know he didn't do shit to stop it from getting to this point, but a silver lining's a silver lining. It seems like Ahnold's MO to be a late-comer to the party.

[ensho]

17. him saying that sure got the interviewers shocked speechless

I just caught the end of it as he finished speaking. it was a re-run and the early a.m. talking heads were flabbergasted he said that.

[cobalt1999]

15. Well, he is doing something NOW

That's more that can be said for a number of Democrats right now.

[Turbineguy]

24. Not doing anything earlier may turn out to be the best.

The proposition was passed as written and not massaged so that it could not overturned later by the Court.

I see a silver lining in this mess.

Once it's overturned, it's harder to put forward again. Also, the country moves on and people who voted in favor last time will see other things as more pressing.

[anigbrowl]

35. He declared against it before the election

the No on 8 campaigns included that fact in commercials.

[dkofos]

7. At least he gets this right.

[GodlessBiker]

14. He's an ass. The State Legislature legalized gay marriage twice and he vetoed it both times.

[ProgressiveFool]

16. There's no way a change like this can be made with a simple majority vote

It will be overturned.

Otherwise, I'm going to propose a constitutional ammendment to make every Friday a holiday.

[Fleshdancer]

18. Damn the h8ers for making me agree with Ah-nold on something.

Seriously though, I hope he's correct on this.

[LynneSin]

19. Arnold has nothing to lose - I say he tells the Prop 8 supporters to fuck off.

But the least he could do is honor those couples who married while it was legal for them to do so.

[shadowknows69]

20. I said this several days ago

I've been taking a cup half full approach. I think this could potentially lead to a more permanent precedent in higher courts. That would be a good thing yes?

[Blu Dahlia]

31. good leadership on his part

[DavidDvorkin]

32. Sssshhhh. You're not supposed to say positive things about Schwarzenegger on DU.

[TexasObserver]

34. I think the California Supreme Court will rule against Prop 8.

I've read the petition filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights for injunctive relief and issuance of a writ of mandamus, and I like its chances of success.

I believe this is the kind of issue that the California Supreme Court will look for a way to set aside the Prop 8 language, and ruling that the change requires more than a simple majority vote is the way to do it.

I like our chances of success on this.

[and-justice-for-all]

37. Oh man I hope so, let it be so..nt