California Supreme Court pulls tax measure from November ballot

The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 20, 2024 | Bob Egelko

[Brian Griffin]

Imagine if we lacked Amendment II.

The Bill of Rights is evidence that legislative (and executive and judicial power) must be limited. See Amendments I, IV, and VIII respectively.

[Brian Griffin]

A majority should not be able force a government to fleece a minority.

A majority of voters should be able to say that’s a bad statute or we can’t bear that additional tax.

If one man (a President) can veto a law, then a majority of voters should have the like ability.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article KingofZion.

"The court granted a request by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators to remove the measure from the ballot."

---

And California voters, including illegal aliens, will predictably reelect their state's elite career Democratic legislators in November, right?

• California Has No Idea How Much Its Homeless Programs Are Costing, Audit Finds (4.9.24)

• California audit finds state is broke: $55 billion more owed than available (3.20.24)

• Illegal Aliens Will Get Interest-Free Home Loans Under New Democrat California Bill (3.2.24)

• California Forced To Repay Millions After Giving Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare To ‘Noncitizens' (6.5.24)

  This was Newsom's project.

  Gov. Gavin Newsom to Offer Health Insurance to the World’s Migrants in 2024 If They Can Get to California (12.29.23)

• Gavin Newsom let California default on $18.6B in fed unemployment loans (5.8.23)

• Californians approved billions for new water storage. Why hasn’t it gotten built? (Non-FR; 1.16.23)

[frog in a pot]

First, please bear in mind my comment was made with regard to the actions of voters at the state level which, of course, is what the underlying article is about.

Secondly, even before the Constitution was adopted it was argued states should retain the right to adopt other republican forms of government and indeed the USSC has since believed so, as does history.

Ergo, my point is that directly restraining the rulers we vote on (in this case denying the right to impose additional taxes) is not prohibited even by a "strict" view of the Constitution. (Just off the top of my head from decades ago.)

[BobL]

Meaningless, as California is VERY QUICKLY running out of taxpayers to finance their schemes.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Voters are not allowed to change the constitution in California, because that would be unconstitutional!

The judges there did the same thing years ago in regards to illegal aliens.

All conservative amendments to the California constitution are deemed unconstitutional.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The number one qualification to be a Feral ‘judge’ is that you must be a far leftwing, retarded jackass.

[aquila48]

These are the “lovers of democracy” who absolutely do not want you to vote on something very important to you.

Makes my blood boil!

[L.A.Justice]

I like Howard Jarvis group...I think Prop 13 was a great idea...

But, I think this ballot measure tried to do too many things...

Dealing with tax increases “retroactively”?

Howard Jarvis group and others will try again in the future...

It would be great if people stopped sending Democrats, who love raising taxes, to Sacramento...I do not know if that will ever happen...

[Svartalfiar]

A business-sponsored initiative ... must be removed from the November ballot because it is so far-reaching that it would be a “revision” of the state Constitution, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.
...
The initiative, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would...

Wait, what? CA doesn't allow you to amend their Constitution, because it amends their Constitution? How does that make any sense?