The right of the People is dead. Clear Proof
Posted by ogr8bearded1 11 years, 4 months ago to Government
When I heard the DOMA being struck down, the wording seemed to indicate that a State could make their choice. Then the SCOTUS effectively struck down Prop 8, a legally passed amendment because the People have no legal standing to defend the law? We have just been told we are nothing, that our choices have no meaning and we will not be heard. What was it I read somewhere? When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.....
One thing AS teaches us is that a law is useless unless the "right people" break it. It is simply a law they can enforce against anyone they wish to, any time they wish to, and there is virtually no defense against it.
It is the "perfect" 10-289 type law that can be used universally to catch the "right people" at the "right time."
What the Tenth Amendment says is that those rights not given to the Federal government and not denied to the States reside in the State OR the people. So seems to me both have standing. The People amended their Constitution, not the State. So who here has the best argument for standing?
This is not a case of A thinks B has harmed C. It is a case of A thinks B has harmed B. A(The People) are saying B(The State) is not following the Constitution of B(The State.) So what does SCOTUS say? That B(The State) has to say it has a problem. That's like asking a drug addict if he has an addiction and believing him when he says no.
No, it had already been struck down in District Court. It was no longer part of the California Constitution. The Supreme Court decided not to interfere with that decision, and that's why the District Court ruling stands.
"The People amended their Constitution, not the State. So who here has the best argument for standing?"
The people of California weren't the people who sued. It wasn't the people of California who brought the case to the Supreme Court. It was the US House of Representatives. It was the House of Representatives' "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" -- that is, a federal-level, not state-level group -- that was found to have no standing. Thus it was A = the US House of Representatives thinking B = the District Court ruling striking down Prop 8 was hurting C, the people of California.
Find the actual text of the decision, and you'll see this spelled out very plainly.
But: Mark Lavine is talking about this as I type, and I am gong to try to hear him out. I plan to do some more digging, and will gladly reverse my first post if I am even close to being wrong!
See what trouble we get into when we decide we can say a legally passed amendment is unconstitutional?
It was not struck down for violating the California constitution. It was struct down by a California court for violating the US Constitution. It modified the California constitution, but states are not free to have their constitutions violate the US Constitution. The California court recognized that and struck down the amendment.
Again, don't take my word for it. Read what the Supreme Court wrote.
I am still researching, but I will declare that I am OK with the Federal Supreme Court passing decisions back to the states...and Prop 8 may be just one of these.
He has been hidden for what I have to believe is his inflammatory opening remarks, but once he settles down he has a great deal of legal knowledge, and debates better than most of us.
Just an observation from this thread....
P.S. For whatever it is worth, I am a supporter of DOMA!
Can you?
Ayn Rand is all about calling her political opponents monsters. In a sense, that's all she does; you can't have her Nietzschean ubermenchen without untermenschen to contrast with. Rand is all about the demonization of the majority of humanity -- branded with terms like "moocher" and "looter" and, when John Galt's speech is at its most ridiculous, being nothing less than "anti-life." Yes, communism was monstrous, but that doesn't make everyone who ever opposed Rand on anything a communist. Yet I've been called that here. Why?
I'd answer that the problem Rand's followers have with understanding their opposition is because books like "Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" don't equip them to. Characters oppose Howard Roark because they're inherently bad people in a conspiracy of bad people, and that's all you need to know. People oppose John Galt because they're bad people in a conspiracy of bad people, and that's all you need to know. How does that prepare you to deal with criticism of Rand's writing? By teaching you to dismiss it all without actually intellectually engaging with it: just say "moocher" and declare yourself the victor. Or else try to simply filibuster away opposition like Galt does, jamming as many words as possible into your opposition's cartoon mouth and scoring the world's biggest victory against your own straw men in one long monologue.
That's why the chapter Rand is best known for is not a dialogue. It doesn't involve any listening at all by John Galt. It's just a long, long, long, uninterrupted sermon. Why? Because Rand's philosophy doesn't have any ability to honestly engage with its opponents. And why is that? Because Rand's philosophy doesn't even have the ability to *understand* its opponents, and simply labels them as monsters.
I really don't care what the subject is about in this ruling. What I care about is whether law is followed. I have just been told that my First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and my Tenth Amendment Right also is being ignored. By ruling that only States and not the People have a right to bring suit is a clear violation of everyone's rights. I expect rulings to be made on the basis of law, not to ignore the law entirely in order to avoid presenting their own majority and minority opinions on a case.
You're misunderstanding the very simple issue of standing. The Supreme Court did *not* say that in general people have no right to sue. What they said, very specifically, is that if A thinks B has harmed C, A can't sue B on C's behalf if C has refused to sue. There is nothing new here. In fact, Justice Kennedy said exactly this in the decision: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."
The California supporters of Prop 8 has their 'beef' with their state government, and their case should have been upheld by California's highest court. California is a nightmare for any sane, and reasoning, person and their only correct course is to vote the tone-deaf politicians out.
In short: SCOTUS didn't side with anyone as to Prop 8, they just ruled that it was a state's problem, and as such, needed to be resolved by that state's courts and ballot boxes.
I also want to state there is no restoration of "rights" to the gay couple. The state recognizes marriage. It is defined, changing the definition sets a powerful precedent.
I support gays' rights to legally partner. and for the State (who had no business involving itself in the first place to offer the same benefits through recognition to those unions), but to force private citizens to provide some benefit they do not want to provide is immoral, and should be illegal.