CA Supreme Court Overturns ban on Same Sex Marriage

You would think it would be a two-thirds majority... Just a simple majority is all it takes?

Well, gee. Considering that the Legislative branch has passed a bill overturning the same law that this case did TWICE, but it was vetoed by Capitan No Balls TWICE because he said that this is an issue for the voters and the courts, I think you (as usual) don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Go back to your hole, Stock. It's even more pathetic here than usual.

Kind of. It's retarded. The Referendum and Amendment system here is beyond stupid.

It does fly in the face of the notion of a constitution--a core or backbone. If you're constantly changing it, it's not really a constitution anymore or more specifically that it no longer performs the same function as the US Constitution. Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about the Californian political system, so maybe it's helpful. I don't know. It just seems odd.

I'm surprised your head didn't cave in after that.

You are 100% correct. The California Constitution is longer than every other state except for Louisiana, and Louisiana uses a completely different legal system than any other state in the union. In other words, it is so massive and ridiculous that it allows the state legislature to completely shirk any responsibility that a normal legislature would have and foist any controversial issue off on the voters (who usually don't know what they're voting on when they do. See: Prop 13.).

If anyone ever needed a reason to favor (little "r") republican government over (little "d") democratic government, simply look at the California Constitution.

I'm not really against the idea of a referendum system (as in a direct vote by the citizenry [forgive me if I'm getting technical terms messed up]) for amendments, but that it only needs to be a simple majority to pass seems ridiculous.

It seems that the stuff that's usually covered under constitutional law is so fundamental to every citizen's way of life, that changes should reflect the will of a far and away majority of the citizenry.

What kind of process is there to repeal amendments to California's constitution?

Exactly. I'd say 3/4th or at the very least 2/3rds. I mean hell, Congress needs 2/3rds simply to shut down a filibuster,

I am. But I acknowledge I'm in the minority there. I live in San Francisco, therefore, I am an Elitist, and you are Bitter.

That's true to an extent. It's important to note that the general function of the federal government is different than the general function of state governments. Remember that the Federal Constitution is a "granting" document. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say it can do something it (theoretically) can't. State Constitutions are "limiting" documents. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say it CAN'T do something, it can. This is an oversimplification, but it's useful.

The point is that almost all state constitutions cover stuff that you wouldn't think would fall under the category of "fundamental" rights. But that's the point of state constitutions. California just takes that to an absurd and (in my opinion) unworkable extreme.

Same as there is to pass them.

I'm amused that he thinks our supreme court toes a "liberal line", what with the 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

And was I incorrect in my understanding that the legislative branch can't overturn referendums? I never really did get a proper education on California government.

It's hysterical, actually. If he ever had any sort of credibility whatsoever, this is the huge, glaring example as to why he shouldn'tve. He's a pathetic moron.

No! The legislative branch can overturn referendums (again, they overturned this law twice, but Arnold is a front-runner and a wee pansy wuss and wouldn't sign the bills), but only when they are referendums to pass a statute. NOT when they are referendums to pass a constitutional amendment. It's extraordinarily confusing. I got a B(+?) in my class that explained the difference between those types of referendums, but I don't remember the difference and am too lazy/drunk to look it up.

After reading your example of Prop 13 above, I can see where you're coming from. More complex bills that even an educated voter would have trouble understanding probably shouldn't go up for referendum.

Ah. I did not know that. That's a good, digestible explanation, by the way. That's why I liked your articles, you have a knack for boiling down the legalize into stuff I can understand.

That's fair enough I suppose.

Prop 13 is the worst thing that has ever happened to California.

This is exactly my point. I am a highly educated person, especially when it comes to government and law. Every election, there are always 6-10 referendums on the ballot, 4-6 of which I have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Again, I'm an Elitist so feel free to roll your eyes and call me a card-carrying member of the Liberal Inteligencia, but if *I* can't figure out how to vote on this funding bill for the California Delta infrastructure, then how the fuck is Joe Nobody going to figure it out when he doesn't have time or doesn't care to take the time? The answer is: He isn't. He'll just vote how the commercial he last saw told him to vote.

In the same election, I vote for state legislators. I pay those state legislators to make those fucking decisions for me. It's their job. If they make the wrong decision, I can vote for someone else. That's how republican government is supposed to work. Instead, California approaches direct democracy. If this were Wyoming and we had 56 people in the whole state, direct democracy might work. But we're the largest state in the Union and the 5th largest economy in the world. It's ridiculous.

Sorry, I love this state (extra hard right now), but there are some parts that drive me bats. And I'm not just talking about the Dodgers. This time.

Thanks for clearing that up! My mother almost always votes no on referendums on the principle that elect a state legislature to do that for us. Reading the shit that shows up on our ballots, I'm inclined to agree with her.

Stop insulting the pathetic morons. It's mean.

(Other than the Dodgers)

Your mom and I do the same thing! (And I don't even mean that in the dirty way!)

Unless it's something I care deeply about, I vote no on everything on principle. I'm like Ron Paul. Except I don't have a blimp and I like black people.

It's a secret New Yorker conspiracy. First they send us the Dodgers, then they send us Joe Torre. It's a secret invasion force.

What makes you think it didn't?

Also, hurray for California! Even though it is taking a hella long time, slowly but surely, common sense is making headway.* I can't imagine why so many State governments give a flying fuck about who' s marrying who. Do they really have nothing better to worry about?!?!

*I reserve the right to withdraw this comment if McCain gets elected.

How does one branch of government doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. interpreting the constitution (which is the ONLY thing Supreme Courts are supposed to do at any level of government) counts as a suborned system?

Or is the system only wrong when it disagrees with your personal small-mindedness?

I believe this is what's referred to as a "bullseye". It's actually a little scary how many people don't recognize the entire purpose of a supreme court.

in other words, stockula, lrn2threebranchesofgovernment. noob.

. . . . . .

I have no idea if I've been supported or insulted

heh. supported. lrn2whatever (learn to whatever) is, i think, largely idiomatic to the world of warcraft forums. come to think, it should probably be left there...

How's that monarchy working for you?