In November 1964, an overwhelming 65 percent majority of the state's voters approved Proposition 14, a constitutional amendment that overturned a fair-housing law and allowed racial discrimination in property sales and rentals.Posted on 12/24/2008 7:48:35 AM PST by SmithL
Attorney General Jerry Brown's legal challenge to California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage marks the first time that the state's top lawyer has refused to defend a newly enacted ballot measure since 1964 - another epic discrimination case that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
In November 1964, an overwhelming 65 percent majority of the state's voters approved Proposition 14, a constitutional amendment that overturned a fair-housing law and allowed racial discrimination in property sales and rentals.
Attorney General Thomas Lynch - newly appointed to succeed Stanley Mosk, a Prop. 14 opponent who had just been named to the state Supreme Court - concluded the initiative violated U.S. constitutional standards and left private lawyers representing sponsors as its sole defenders in court.
The state Supreme Court - minus Mosk, who removed himself from the case - overturned Prop. 14 in 1966, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit in 1967. Lynch filed written arguments urging the nation's high court to rule the measure unconstitutional.
Brown personally opposed Proposition 8, the initiative restoring the ban on gay and lesbian marriages that the state Supreme Court had struck down in May, but said the day after the Nov. 4 election that he planned to defend it in court.
On Friday, however, Brown took the side of gay rights groups and other opponents of the measure. He told the state Supreme Court that his usual obligation to defend state laws must give way, in this case, to his duty to uphold fundamental rights in the state Constitution.
It is a rare example of an attorney general taking on a law enacted by either the Legislature or the voters. The office typically represents state officials or agencies in court and often defends laws that the attorney general opposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
He was govenor when Prop 13 was voted in. He flipped several ways on that one.
His claim...to make this “slap” against the voters....is that there is a “right” for marriage that exists, and must be extended to each citizen of the state. As far as I know...across all fifty states...I don’t think any of them have a statement in their constitution about marriage being a right...its simply something the state has regulated (you can’t marry a son or daughter or sister, nor can you have two or more wives). Brown’s argument will not stand up in any court (except Cal’s supreme court). The argument will fail once it hits the US Supreme Court....even the left-standing judges will have issues about non-existent rights in a constitution.
“He told the state Supreme Court that his usual obligation to defend state laws must give way, in this case, to his duty to uphold fundamental rights in the state Constitution.”
Then he needs to immediately resign his position because his JOB is to uphold the state Constitution.
This is typical liberal thinking. If the vote goes against them it was either stolen or the candidate/law/etc was wrong to begin with. They’re only for the “will of the people” when it happens to be their will, too.
So much for the article's objectivism. You don't have to drink the whole glass to know if the milk's gone sour.
“constitutional amendment that overturned a fair-housing law and allowed racial discrimination in property sales and rentals”
Does anyone here believe this interpretation of the amendment? This IS the most nauseating part of our MSM. They throw their spin on everything unless they are challenged on it. Guess what, next week another media outlet picks up and repeats it and now it is dogma.
That may be true today, but in a twisted way. If the California Supreme Court dares to slap down the people of California one more time, by ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, this will happen: either in a retention election (which judges in that state periodically face) or by petition in a recall election, the offending judges will be kicked off the California Supreme Court like Chief Justice Rose Bird was on the death penalty issue a generation ago.
And that example, dumping arrogant judges, will spread to the nation, where the process is harder. At the federal level we have to learn to fire politicians who like arrogant judges.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Come Back to 1600, Johnny Dean, Johnny Dean"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
If he had any integrity he would do so, but I think we know the answer to that.
Marriage is a religious construct. Where are the usual "Separation of Church and State®" howlers on this one?
Q: Why does Linda Ronstadt sing so slowly?
A: Because she has a governor on her.
There will be a recall initiative if the CA Supreme Court defies the will of the people expressed in a constitutionally protected process -- not once, but twice.
He is attacking himself. He was governor for 8 years and never mentioned this issue.
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.