Why isn't the Anti-Defamation League rising up in defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Saddleback Church, or Focus on the Family who have been the target of the No Crowd's "hate." According to the Anti-Defamation League's website "The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 'to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.' Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all."---That is of course, unless the bigotry is aimed toward those who adhere to traditional Christian doctrine.
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- Anti-discrimination groups and bar associations have joined 44 state legislators in calling on the California Supreme Court to overturn the anti-gay marriage initiative voters passed last week.
In letters to the court, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups sided with lawsuits that said Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage, amounted to a sweeping revision of the state Constitution instead of a more limited amendment.
More here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
People v. Frierson
Look it up.
In People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142 (Cal. 1979) the Court did not actually address the constitutionality of the death penalty constitutional amendment passed by the people, so it will be interesting to see how the Prop 8 challenge pans out. I've yet to read the papers filed with the Supreme Court. I'm sure they will shed some light on the legal authority.
The relevant text from People v. Frierson :
(ii) [17] Revision or amendment. Defendant argues that the 1972 initiative measure which adopted section 27 was improper because it constituted a "revision" of the state charter rather than a mere "amendment" thereof. As we have recently explained, although the voters may amend the Constitution through the initiative process, a revision may not be achieved in this fashion. (Amador Valley, supra, at pp. 221-229; see Cal. Const., art. XVIII.) As interpreted by defendant, section 27 contemplates "removal of judicial review" of the death penalty from a carefully built state constitutional structure, thereby resulting in "a significant change in a principle underlying our system of democratic government and can only be accomplished by constitutional revision."
In Amador Valley, we observed that "even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our {Page 25 Cal.3d 187} basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision. ..." (P. 223.) Section 27, however, accomplishes no such sweeping result. As we have explained, we retain broad powers of judicial review of death sentences to assure that each sentence has been properly and legally imposed and to safeguard against arbitrary or disproportionate treatment. In addition, we possess unrestricted authority to measure and appraise the constitutionality of the death penalty under the federal Constitution, in accordance with the guidelines established by the United States Supreme Court. We are thus led to the conclusion that the constitutional change worked by section 27 is not so broad as to constitute a fundamental constitutional revision.
Furthermore, in Amador Valley, we cautioned that too strict a construction of the revision rule "would in effect bar the people from ever achieving any local tax relief through the initiative process." (P. 225.) Similarly, the adoption of defendant's position might effectively bar the people from ever directly reinstating the death penalty, despite the apparent belief of a very substantial majority of our citizens in the necessity and appropriateness of the ultimate punishment. Applying a reasonable interpretation, we conclude that article I, section 27, fairly may be deemed a constitutional amendment, not a revision.
Thanks Michael
Post a Comment