• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

Well then, because less than 50% of eligible voters participated in the 2012 General Election and Obama only won 51% of those, by your reasoning the election should be invalidated?

Elections are decide on plurality, not majority. You are the one who is leaning on a "majority" of 19%
 
Well then, because less than 50% of eligible voters participated in the 2012 General Election and Obama only won 51% of those, by your reasoning the election should be invalidated?

Not at all. My point is that the referendum results were not "overwhelming" as you have said. Nor was it the will of the majority of California's population, again, like you've said. I was just pointing out your fallacy.
 
SSM was legal in CA. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. You can claim it's not a right, but in CA it was before prop 8s passing.
Revisionist history.

Same sex marriage was not legal in California. Prop. 22 which was passed in 2000 defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The California Supreme court overturned the law in 2008. So, in effect, the COURT legalized gay marriage in 2008. This gave rise to prop. 8 which passed in 2010.
 
If the amendment conflicts with the existing constitution, that must be resolved.

It was challenged under the states due process clause and ruled unconstitutional because the state has no compelling interest to justify the ban. It was also determined that the proposition violated the equal protection clause.

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8.
 
Congress has passed many an unconstitutional law. It suppose3d to be why we have a SCOTUS, as referee when someone calls foul.

And the citizen of CA passed an unconstitutional ballot measure because it violates two existing parts of the constitution.
 
The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...

Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?

If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?

That's a good question isn't it?

Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.

Plenty of unconstitutional laws have existed and a fair amount have been made nil because of their being unconstitutional. You make it sound like you're totally unfamiliar with our legal system.

Well if we question the validity of a law that is why we bring it to a court, and it has now moved it's way all the way to the Supreme Court. Now it's future is in the supreme court's hands. You could do the same thing with any law you thought was unconstitutional, and if the court agreed with you then you were successful and correct, but if not then I guess for then that was the end of that. This can be done with practically any law in all of the U.S. so don't make it sound like it's a tool only for use by progressives for their own agenda, everyone has the opportunity to bring a case to the Supreme court.
 
If you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, how did it pass in the first place?

Because we elect idiots who don't even read proposed legislation.

If one doesn't read a bill how the hell would one know it's constitutional or not?

Are you satisfied with representatives who don't even read legislation and only vote on said legislation for partisan reasons?

Obamacare is only 6 feet high... Yeah stack books 6 feet high and that is the "law."

IMO, I would love to know who writes that crap... Who has the time to write a "book" 6 feet high?

At least some people are willing to be responsible and read it... I have read some and there is a lot of substance within the bill that has nothing to do with health care.
 
Last edited:
Because we elect idiots who don't even read proposed legislation.

If one doesn't read a bill how the hell would one know it's constitutional or not?

Are you satisfied with representatives who don't even read legislation and only vote on said legislation for partisan reasons?

So you are satisfied that sometimes unconstitutional acts make it through the democratic process. Thanks.
 
Revisionist history.

Same sex marriage was not legal in California. Prop. 22 which was passed in 2000 defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The California Supreme court overturned the law in 2008. So, in effect, the COURT legalized gay marriage in 2008. This gave rise to prop. 8 which passed in 2010.

Which does not invalidate my point that prior to prop 8, same sex couples could legally marry in CA and were in fact doing so.
 
If progressives are really this passionate about gay marriage than why don't they TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of running to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah they can't because defining marriage is impossible not to mention a slippery slope argument, or the so-called fallacies they refuse to recognize even exist. They can't do it because defining would be de facto discrimination.

Unbelievable...

You've really never heard of judicial review have you?

The SCOTUS was able to over turn racial segregation without a change to the text of the Constitution being required, the same can be done with gay marriage.
 
54% of the population wouldn't be eligiable for voting? The national average of people under 18 is 23.7%. That is large chunk of people who never bothered registering.

And of course that doesn't matter here. Majority equals majority of VOTERS. Once again, voter turnout was high for the state and the majority of the voters voted Prop 8 in.
 
If progressives are really this passionate about gay marriage than why don't they TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of running to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah they can't because defining marriage is impossible not to mention a slippery slope argument, or the so-called fallacies they refuse to recognize even exist. They can't do it because defining would be de facto discrimination.

Unbelievable...

Because the obvious step before going to Congress for an Amendment is going to the Supreme court for a precedent. Because It is incredibly easier for 5 justices to agree rather than 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states. It's really just common sense don't judge others for being more tactful in their lawful precedings than the side that you prefer.
 
If progressives are really this passionate about gay marriage than why don't they TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of running to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah they can't because defining marriage is impossible not to mention a slippery slope argument, or the so-called fallacies they refuse to recognize even exist. They can't do it because defining would be de facto discrimination.

Unbelievable...

If regressives are so against obamacare why didn't they repeal it instead of running to the Supreme Court?
 
And the citizen of CA passed an unconstitutional ballot measure because it violates two existing parts of the constitution.

NOT according to the state. Once the voters enacted and the state supreme court upheld the intiative the state had a duty to defend it's constitution.
 
And the citizen of CA passed an unconstitutional ballot measure because it violates two existing parts of the constitution.

Something that changes a constitution through a valid change process cannot be unconstitutional to that constitution. Sorry.
 
And of course that doesn't matter here. Majority equals majority of VOTERS. Once again, voter turnout was high for the state and the majority of the voters voted Prop 8 in.

Understood. I had been responding to longknife's hyperbolic statement that the results had been overwhelming, which as I have shown they weren't. I have no problem with the size of the electorate.
 
The federal district court overturned it, and they hold higher power.

That's nice and also why the SCOTUS is hearing the issue. Also superflous to the state's duty to defend their constitution.
 
NOT according to the state. Once the voters enacted and the state supreme court upheld the intiative the state had a duty to defend it's constitution.

States are not a hive mind. The executive is not bound in any way to defend every law or ballot measure in a court of law.
 
Something that changes a constitution through a valid change process cannot be unconstitutional to that constitution. Sorry.

Yes it can if the provisions conflict with each other. Also, state constitutions cannot conflict with the US Constituton.
 
States are not a hive mind. The executive is not bound in any way to defend every law or ballot measure in a court of law.

Part of the oath of office:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without

any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about
to enter.

Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment upheld by the state supreme court - it wasn't just any law or ballot measure.
 
Plenty of unconstitutional laws have existed and a fair amount have been made nil because of their being unconstitutional. You make it sound like you're totally unfamiliar with our legal system.

Well if we question the validity of a law that is why we bring it to a court, and it has now moved it's way all the way to the Supreme Court. Now it's future is in the supreme court's hands. You could do the same thing with any law you thought was unconstitutional, and if the court agreed with you then you were successful and correct, but if not then I guess for then that was the end of that. This can be done with practically any law in all of the U.S. so don't make it sound like it's a tool only for use by progressives for their own agenda, everyone has the opportunity to bring a case to the Supreme court.

Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment, Prop 8, propositions in general and direct democracy?

The Supreme Court even hearing this case is unconstitutional in the first place because it violates the Tenth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage or even marriage, however the Tenth Amendment is quite clear.
 
Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment, Prop 8, propositions in general and direct democracy?

The Supreme Court even hearing this case is unconstitutional in the first place because it violates the Tenth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage or even marriage, however the Tenth Amendment is quite clear.

Due process and equal protection are even more clear.
 
Yes it can if the provisions conflict with each other. Also, state constitutions cannot conflict with the US Constituton.

Those conflicts are determined to exist or not exist by the SCOTUS. The state's highest court had already decided the amendment was a legitimate part of the state's constitution. From that point forward the state has a duty to defend their constitution against any court challenge.
 
Back
Top Bottom