KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM
Original message |
Why Wasn't The CA Supreme Court Asked To Rule On Constitutionality Of Prop 8? |
|
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM by KittyWampus
My understanding, after reading multiple threads is that the case that was brought, and which the SC of CA just ruled on asked whether Prop 8 was an amendment or addition to the CA State Constitution.
For that reason, the judges couldn't make a broader ruling and say it was, in fact, unconstitutional.
Can anyone explain why this narrow strategy was chosen?
And if a case CAN be brought to the same court asking them to consider Prop 8's constitutionality?
I apologize if any of the above is grossly incorrect. Just trying to get a handle on actual facts.
|
Q3JR4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-26-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I think it has to do with the fact that |
|
prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment. It would be sticky for a court constrained by a constitution to rule on changes to that constitution. Whether or not they disagree with it, I would say they have to enforce it. That being said if there are procedural arguments to be made on the issue, that's where an amendment can be set aside.
Q3JR4 Not a constitutional scholar and quite possibly could be talking out his ass.
|
HamdenRice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-26-09 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It's been pointed out already but a constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional |
|
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:38 PM by HamdenRice
It's the constitution that determines what is constitutional. So they focused on the procedure by which the constitution was amended.
However, a state constitution can be unconstitutional under the federal constitution. But at present there are no US Supreme Court cases under the federal constitution on this issue that they could have relied on.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 03:28 PM
Response to Original message |