Skip Nav
JK Rowling
32 Ways Harry Potter Taught Us the Magic of Love
New Year
8 Ways Sex Will Be Different in 2016
Sex
31 NC-17 Movies That Are Basically Porn With a Plot

Understanding

Que Pasa? Understanding California's Prop 8 Hearings

Crowds gathered outside San Francisco's Supreme Court today while inside the court argued the hair-splitting details of the California Constitution and what it takes to change it.

The court has 90 days to make two major decisions: First, whether Prop 8, which eliminated the right to same-sex marriage, should be upheld or overturned. And second, whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages that already took place should remain valid.

It comes down to two words, really — amend and revise. The court needs to decide whether Prop 8 amends the constitution or revises it. The difference? A revision is a fundamental change that no ballot proposition can pass. It requires support from two-thirds of the state legislature and a follow-up majority vote by the people. Because same-sex marriage was deemed an "inalienable right" by the court last year, gay-rights proponents see it as a revision. On the other hand, an amendment is a routine change that simply requires a majority vote, like Prop 8 got with its 52 percent, and no legislative approval.

So while we wait till June for a decision, a new question emerges: Should it be harder to change a constitution?

Source


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Around The Web

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Michelann Michelann 6 years
intent= intend
Michelann Michelann 6 years
intent= intend
Michelann Michelann 6 years
I did not intent to insult your intelligence, but when you make a statement like "anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari", it makes it looks as if you don't have a very thorough understanding of the court systems. I was just trying to clear it up. You also said that "five people properly placed can decide every aspect of our lives should they choose to do so". I was simply pointing out that that isn't exactly the case. Look at the part of the Constitution dealing with the Judicial branch, especially "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." There are some interesting articles about what exactly that means, but most agree that it means their powers are far from unlimited.
Michelann Michelann 6 years
I did not intent to insult your intelligence, but when you make a statement like "anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari", it makes it looks as if you don't have a very thorough understanding of the court systems. I was just trying to clear it up. You also said that "five people properly placed can decide every aspect of our lives should they choose to do so". I was simply pointing out that that isn't exactly the case. Look at the part of the Constitution dealing with the Judicial branch, especially "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." There are some interesting articles about what exactly that means, but most agree that it means their powers are far from unlimited.
stephley stephley 6 years
Well that's as clear as mud but okay.
stephley stephley 6 years
Well that's as clear as mud but okay.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
" I can't lose a case in my local municipal court and appeal directly to the SCOTUS." That above statement led me to that conclusion. I am well aware that you that the court of original jurisdiction in the Federal Court system is the U.S District Court, The next step is the Court of appeals, and the final arbiter is the SCOTUS. To presume I thought you could go from a local municipal court directly to the SCOTUS, is either being frivolous or insulting to my intelligence. Either way, I stand by my statement.
stephley stephley 6 years
I mentioned it because the accuracy had been bugging me since I read it.
Michelann Michelann 6 years
Grandpa, I don't understand your last comment. I don't think anybody is arguing purely for the sake of arguing. I agree that the S.C. is powerful, but they do not have the ultimate power that you think they have.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Laid out a hypothetical with regards to the 5 judges; I am not into arguing for the sake of arguing, sorry.
Michelann Michelann 6 years
Grandpa, a writ of certiorari is more or less just the court's discretion to pick their cases from the cases brought to them, not from every case in the legal system as a whole. And you're wrong when you say that "anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari", because they have to go through the legal procedure before they get to the Supreme Court. I can't lose a case in my local municipal court and appeal directly to the SCOTUS. There are proper steps that must be taken first.
stephley stephley 6 years
Yes, but Mich referred to the court not randomly taking cases - legal procedure IS followed, the choices are not random selection by the judges. Filing a test case is not the choice of the judges.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
A writ of certiorari is an order by the Supreme Court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review.Steph, filing a case to test a law is done all the time.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
A writ of certiorari is an order by the Supreme Court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review. Steph, filing a case to test a law is done all the time.
stephley stephley 6 years
Heck, while we're at it, your answer #10 to Mich's #9 is confusing. A writ of certiorari is legal procedure, not the court randomly deciding to take up an issue; an expedited case still comes through legal procedure, not the judges deciding randomly to rule on an issue.Did I miss something in your answer?
stephley stephley 6 years
Heck, while we're at it, your answer #10 to Mich's #9 is confusing. A writ of certiorari is legal procedure, not the court randomly deciding to take up an issue; an expedited case still comes through legal procedure, not the judges deciding randomly to rule on an issue. Did I miss something in your answer?
stephley stephley 6 years
:faint:
stephley stephley 6 years
:faint:
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Steph, I respectfully disagree.
stephley stephley 6 years
Hmmm. I think to accept that claim on face value G'pa, one would have to belong to the Seriously Disingenuous School of History. Often, majority votes came after the courts ruled.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
It WAS the majority that eliminated both slavery and segregation, flutterpie
flutterpie flutterpie 6 years
im sorry but if we always followed the majority rules mentality than we would still have slavery and segregation. There are some things that cannot be voted on. What alot of people are missing is that the law (not really a law more like an addendum to the marriage language that california had on the books) was in direct conflict with the california constitution. the idea that the population is allowed vote to not only amend the constitution but to amend it to discriminate againist a group of people is appalling.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
hypno, I agree that gay marriage is indeed inevitable. I can not think of a greater waste of time, money, or effort in the political arena then this topic.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
No it shouldn't be harder to change the constitution. The problem with Prop. 8 and it's predecessor is that the writers forgot to cross their T's and dot their I's which aside from all of the emotion and beliefs on each side really comes down to legal technicality and the law it self. Let it be a lesson learned and don't change anything about the process. If you want to change the constitution simple cross your T's and dot your I's. Equal rights to marry is inevitable for homosexuals it may not happen this time around but it will happen with in the next ten years. With only a 4 point margin separating the yay's from the nay's it shows that people are shedding old stereo types and ridiculous beliefs about homosexuals.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
No it shouldn't be harder to change the constitution. The problem with Prop. 8 and it's predecessor is that the writers forgot to cross their T's and dot their I's which aside from all of the emotion and beliefs on each side really comes down to legal technicality and the law it self. Let it be a lesson learned and don't change anything about the process. If you want to change the constitution simple cross your T's and dot your I's. Equal rights to marry is inevitable for homosexuals it may not happen this time around but it will happen with in the next ten years. With only a 4 point margin separating the yay's from the nay's it shows that people are shedding old stereo types and ridiculous beliefs about homosexuals.
Latest Love
X