Posted on 06/27/2013 8:59:31 AM PDT by 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:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Does this mean the governor’s demand clerks (statewide) start issuing licenses for them to marry was an unlawful act by the governor? Would be great to see moonbeam in jail.
So is Walker’s stay still in effect or does his ruling against Prop 8 take effect? And if stayed, the the moment the 9th doe what they were told - dismiss - then Walker is free to lift his stay (if it doesn’t automatically expire on its own).
New York civil procedure has no bearing on CA or SCOTUS.
The article is wrong, since it cites a statute that precludes an ‘administrative agency’ from declaring any law unconstitutional.
Of course.
This is the expected law in every state with administrative agencies. They are not courts. They are under the executive branch.
If there is no timely appeal, the lower court decision is binding.
The author's conclusion is wrong, but not for the reason he states. Ordinarily, a decision of a federal district court, or a state trial court, is not binding precedent for other cases. It binds the parties, unless overturned on appeal, but if another case comes up between different parties, a trial-level court's decision is something the next court can consider, but it isn't bound by it. That's why the California Constitution says that the State can't ignore a state statute even if a district court judge said it was unconstitutional-- the state can, and should, defend the statute until the issue is decided by an appellate court.
This assumes that the State was not a party to the first case. If Plaintiff A sues Defendant B under California statute X, and a trial-level court (state or federal) throws the case out because it believes Statute X is unconstitutional, that decision binds no one but A and B, so the state can argue in another case that the statute is constitutional.
The Prop. 8 case is different because the state's officials were named as defendants, and the district court enjoined the Governor and Attorney General from enforcing Prop. 8. So the trial court's decision is now binding on the state because they were parties to the case, they were enjoined, and the appeal from that decision has been dismissed. So the Prop. 8 decision is not binding on anyone as precedent, but it is binding on the state because it was a party.
Walker's stay is in effect until the 9th Circuit vacates its decision, as SCOTUS ordered it to do. The process of the decision formally coming down from SCOTUS to the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit formally acting on it will take about a month. Once that happens, the stay disappears automatically without a further order from the District Judge (which wouldn't be Walker anyway, because he retired).
And at that point, Prop 8 is officially unconstitutional and will remain so since the party with standing, the State of California, refuses to appeal. So any assertions of Prop 8 still being valid ignore that it is in a coma, fluids and food are being withheld, it sits in hospice, and has a month left to live at best.
Judge Walker temporarily stayed his ruling to allow Prop 8 supporters time to file an appeal. That stay expired on Friday, August 6, 2010. The 9th Circuit then stayed Walker’s ruling on August 16, 2010 pending the appeal being resolved in their jurisdiction. The 9th Circuit issued their decision on February 7, 2012. That ruling was stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS has ruled, I would guess that all stays have expired. IANAL though.
When I have time, I will go read the stays that were granted to see if I can give you a definitive answer. I’ll also ping my buddy for his opinion.
Ah, ha. I gotcha. Thanks.
Never mind! LL answered you. Thanks, LL.
I don’t know. See LL’s reply to NVA below about the stays expiring.
thanks.
will do ...
The "proponent/intervenor" lost me. Who lacked standing the proponents or opponents of Prop 8 and if the appeal is dismissed, doesn't that take it back to the district court that ruled agaisnt Prop 8?
On threads like this, sometimes I wish only attorneys were allowed to post. ;)
If it was the same plaintiff as the case that went before SCOTUS recently...then the issue of standing should be the same with the US district court. In other words, the district court should have tossed the case for lack of standing, instead of reaching a decision.
The Prop 8 proponents were legally referred to as the defendant-intervenor because they intervened in the CA Supreme Court case to defend the State’s interests because they feared that the State officials would not adequately defend Prop 8. (They were right.) When Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, the State of CA refused to appeal to the 9th Circuit. So Prop 8 proponents (intervenors) did so. SCOTUS ruled that they lacked standing to appeal. So, yes, Walker’s ruling (District Court) stands.
See my post at #76. I’ve detailed that for you.
No they can't. Under the author's reading of the CA Constitution, the current situation is:
1. California officials may not enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the Federal Constitution (per the District Court's decision); but, 2. California officials must enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the California Constitution
California officials, therefore, face directly conflicting obligations under the California and Federal Constitutions. Under the Supremacy Clause, the answer is quite clear - where an official's obligations under a state law or Constitution conflict with the Federal Constitution, the Federal constitution wins out. You can't sue (well, you can sue, but won't win) to force a state official to take an action inconsistent with the Federal constitution.
======================================================
Does the US Constitution saying anything about the right to marry?
The laws regarding marriage licences vary from state to state.
Currently, gays married in CA, may in fact not be recognized as married in TX (for example).
The states (currently) have discretion to some degree.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I can see how the feds would say DOMA is unconstitutional (because it involves fed distributed (tax payer) money, etc), but how can the feds (US disctrict court) say CA has no right to define marriage in their state?
Ubama and the homosexuals squealed with joy like schoolgirls when they thought the Supreme Court had declared homosexual “marriage” a Constitutional right. Turns out the turd pokers still have some work to do.
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.