Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Justice Moreno jokes about what the meaning of “is” means (in the Prop 8 text)

Theresa Stewart, City and County of San Francisco petitioner, now up.

Talk about voters intent regarding retro-invadility of homo-marriages. Steart claims voters didn’t contemplate that issue.

Stewart: Prop 8 is a revision. Alters our core protection.

Justice hypothetical: what is there was a measure to repeal Prop 209 or eliminate same-sex schools?

Another Justice: How has the structure of our Constitution been changed?

Ugh, Stewart sounds and looks like Ellen DeGeneres on speed. I need to take a break.


17 posted on 03/05/2009 10:16:14 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


Christopher Krueger, representative for the Attorney General’s office. Justice asks him which side he’s on. Representing the challengers’ side (i.e., anti-8).

Justice: Do you agree that it’s a revision?
Krueger: No. It’s an amendment. Under case law, it’s not a revision.

The Raven case from 1990 keeps getting brought up today.

Justice: You disagree with the challengers on revision vs amendment.
Krueger: The AG takes position that it’s not a revision; it’s unconstitutional.

Talk of “Inalienable”

Justices: Can the people amend their constitution? What are the limitations? What is the extent of that limitation?

Justice: What does “inalienable” include?

Justice: “Right of privacy” was added in 1972.
The people also have a right to fish.

Justice Baxter: Talk of death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment and the Anderson case and the people reinstituted the death penalty via the Amendment process... was that valid (Kruger: Yes). Then why not Prop 8?

Krueger is stymied by the double-standard.

Justice: Article 18, Sec 3. (amending the Constitution vis initiative).. is amendment the constitution an inalienable?
Krueger reluctantly agrees, then tries to justify the AG office’s opposition to Prop 8.

Justice Kennard: The right of the people to change or alter has been a basic, fundamental, “inalienable” right. But you would have us choose between these two rights, the “inalienable right to marry” and the people’s right to change the constitution via amendment. The people establish the constitution and the judges’ powers are limited.


18 posted on 03/05/2009 10:41:24 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson