Posted on 10/11/2006 3:40:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Great Idea! Will the courts allow it?
hope they allow it...if yes...it owuld be the model for every other state and maybe this would end the invasion of illegals..and th US could regain some sanity!!!
It will pass 'til the 9th circus court gets a hold of it...then pow! just like the Arizona voter ID proposition...into the judicial activist's toilet.
It would be good, but I bet they don't.
ping
The courts will throw it out like they did here in Colorado...but keep trying....
Our society is to weak for a move like this. We will continue to let our country go straight to hell in order to maintain our view of ourselves as compassionate human beings and so that the power interests can benefit from cheap labor.
Probably yes - Reason: If private citizens have the right to sue, they will probably hire a lawyer to help them. Second, private citizens can put the costs onto the bureaucrat giving welfare to illegal aliens, which means that the private citizen can hire a lawyer on contingency and have the lawyer paid by the bureaucrat when the bureaucrat loses.
In a nutshell, if the trial lawyers can make money suing those who give welfare or other benefits to illegal aliens, the courts are likely going to side with the lawyers, even though the courts could care less about the taxpayers - Re: Proposition 187.
Looks good to me!
--
Section 1 - Addition of Article I, Section 26, to the California Constitution Article I, Section 26, is hereby added to the California Constitution as follows:
SEC. 26.
(a) The State shall not authorize or provide to any alien not lawfully in the United States, a driver’s license or government identification card, exemption from nonresident tuition or fees for postsecondary education, grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license; or any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit, unless those benefits or services are required to be provided pursuant to federal law.
(b) For the purposes of this section, “State” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, township, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(c) If any part or parts of this section are challenged in state or federal court, the State shall defend the legality of this section until all appeals have been exhausted and a final judgment is enacted.
(d) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
(e) Any citizen residing in the state of California may sue for injunctive, declaratory, or any other appropriate relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this section. In any legal action to enforce subdivision (a), the burden shall be on the State to demonstrate that the benefits or services are required to be provided pursuant to federal law. The court shall award to a prevailing plaintiff or defendant, other than the State, the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
(f) Any elected official or government official who willfully violates the provisions of this title may be held personally liable for the costs of litigation including reasonable attorney’s fees and actual damages.
Bttt!
Considering that Prop 187 passed by a wide margin a decade ago and that things have only gotten worse (and more publicized since then), I think this has a good chance of passing as well.
Go Dick Mountjoy!! I sure hope so.
Dick is a great guy!!
This should be interesting. I'm not holding my breath until the US has the collective, national resolve to include anchor babies as part of routine, deportation orders.
So what happens if it passes? Some judge will toss it.
Good judgment. The alternative would not work out well (guaranteed!)
(sign) most likely.
All we can do is keep throwing propostions at them until one sticks.
(sign) == (sigh)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.