Not So Fast: Prop 8 is Still California Law

breitbart.com ^ | 6/26/13 | Ken Klukowski

[ColdOne]

News reports that California's Prop 8 has been struck down as unconstitutional are completely false.

Proposition 8 is the amendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A federal trial judge--Vaughn Walker--held that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case--the governor and attorney general of California--had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8's official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the the Ninth Circuit's decision.

But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

[fwdude]

The EmeMedia’s rush to mischaracterize this decision should send a shudder down the spine of every thinking American. This proves that they are firmly on the side of anarchy and lies.

[ckilmer]

What a tangled web they weave when first they start to adjudicate.

[OneWingedShark]

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case--the governor and attorney general of California--had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8's official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

What the court did here was rule that malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance on the part of these rulers is a-ok: that is, essentially, what they have said here.
The question is why? And it has an easy answer: Proposition 8 was [and is] completely valid as an amendment to California's Constitution — that the governor and AG are required to see that the laws are upheld and faithfully executed is, apparently, irrelevant — moreover, this ruling effectively strips people of the right to petition the federal government when a State is violating the 14th Amendment (after all, only the government has standing).

[ConservativeMan55]

bump

[spawn44]

Looks like the HISSY FITS won’t end for a while.

[OneWingedShark]

The EmeMedia’s rush to mischaracterize this decision should send a shudder down the spine of every thinking American.

The really disturbing thing is the decision is all in favor of tyranny — a simple `yes` or `no` would have been infinitely better, but by rejecting standing they've effectively said that only the government can challenge laws.

[HerrBlucher]

Seems to me if the SCOTUS refuses to decide on an appeal then the lower court ruling would stand. This is confusing.

[skeeter]

GayBC News was ready with a bunch of celebratory reports - complete with homosexuals cheering & waxing rhapsodic - at news of the first decision regarding DOMA.

The fact that those were gone by midday told me that the Gay Mob wasn't sure whether the other decision was good news or bad as far as they were concerned.

[fwdude]

Agreed. But I have heard from standard, major media outlets all day that Prop 8 was struck down as "unconstitutional" - a blatant lie. No fact checking or any apparent reading of the case decision.

If we're this lost that we just get opinions from the "news" media instead of facts, we're as good as an anarchist state.

[InterceptPoint]

Note that no California Appellate Court has ruled on this case nor has any Federal Court or the Supreme Court. To see why this is important you need to read the full article where you will find the following:

But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

An administrative agency ... has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

[Praxeologue]

This is confusing.

Here's a comment following the article:

The 9th cant. They've been voided. Walker ruling is the only other one, It did not overturn Prop 8, it only issued a temporary injunction. ... , only an Appeals court can revoke a State constitutional amendment. The Supremes knew this when they issued their ruling in both cases.

So it was an appeal from Walker's temporary injunction that went to the USSC?

[Drawn7979]

it's just gonna be a matter of time.

[Drawn7979]

it's just gonna be a matter of time.

[Tau Food]

A U.S. District Court has declared that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Any provision in the state's constitution, the state's statutes or a county's ordinance that provides that the judgment of a U.S. District Court is unenforceable is a provision that in unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause.

Banning homosexual marriage at this point will literally take an Act of God and the possibility of an Act of God should not be dismissed.

[DannyTN]

I see what they are saying. The Calif Constitution requires an “Appelate” court to have ruled it’s unconstitutional. Otherwise the California Executive has no authority to treat it as unconstitutional. It’s insufficient under the California Consitution for a District court to rule it unconstitutional.

Therefore if California officials don’t appeal the District Court’s ruling and get an appellate court ruling, the officials will violate the California Constitution by accepting the District Court’s ruling.

It sets up an interesting conflict of authority. One I think the District Court would win.

Californians would have grounds for impeachment for failure to seek an appellate court ruling. Unfortunately That and a quarter won’t get them a cup of coffee.

[InterceptPoint]

So the court that made the Prop 8 ruling was a Federal Court?

[Williams]

The bottom line is Jerry Brown screwed his own citizens by refusing to defend their vote in court.

[Mr. K]

LOL- I hope this is true

[Buckeye McFrog]

Mark Levin nailed this one. They handed it back to be picked apart by the lower courts, based on their central finding that “you have to be a bigot in order to oppose gay marriage”.

Levin said this was “written by very clever law clerks” to destroy Prop 8. while keeping SCOTUS fingerprints off of that.