I’m apparently not allowed to edit…
What I’m trying to say is, what’s the point in having an election about something, putting the democratic process into play, if it isn’t going to matter in the slightest and can be turned around if someone with a really motivated attorney can just take it to court?
That should be the responsibility of the one initiating the proposition. I believe most propositions are initiated because their legislators failed to or are unwilling to propose the law. Unfortunately in this case, they had a good reason but the iniators of the proposition didnt see it that way and went ahead and got all the needed signitures and got the proposition on the ballot. They campaigned very well, got the public all passionate in their favor and this legal boondongle occurs. This is totally (this particular) initiators fault.
I couldn’t leave this alone. Sir, I think this is possibly the most ridiculous retort to an argument I’ve seen. None of the idiotic propositions you use as comparisons would ever get a 6% vote, let alone 60%. When you base an argument on such ludicrous analogies, you only further make the point for the person you’re arguing with by saying, “The only retort I have is infantile and lacking any logic so therefore my point is null and void and the opposing argument is valid.”
As for the OP, I wouldn’t say that the situation you brought up was a circumventing of democracy as such. Definitely note-worthy, but not a signal of the death of the democratic process as it is practiced in America.
I would say however that it does illustrate the folly of the judicial system in the US. A system that has become so mired with intricate and involved complexities, all based simply on what is right and wrong, just and unjust, is really quite humorous. IMHO, the judicial system is made up of lawyers and judges who stand to gain from the administration of law being super-complex and “too involved for the laymen to understand.” Furthermore it is governed by legislative bodies (that are made up primarily of lawyers) which seem so fascinated with their own law-making process as to create an environment of esotericism that largely defies any practicality. The issue brought up in the OP is a beautiful example of legal technicalities getting in the way of common sense and democratic sentiment.
Another example of how our system works - Something cannot be found Unconstitutional just by the Courts saying so - someone MUST bring suit in some way to ‘bring it to the court’s attention’. I don’t think (but IANAL, so I could be wrong) that a judge can just look at a law and say ‘That’s Unconstitutional.’
There should be some method of consulting someone like the attorney general’s office as to the language, procedural and substantive issues of the proposal.
W/o knowing more, I’d blame the proponents of the legislation for not familiarizing themselves with all of the details of how the system is currently run.
The problem, I think, is something to which Lander2k2 alluded. Ask any programmer: the more rules you apply to a program, the less flexible it becomes. There are more ammendments, rules, and laws to this country (more specifically this state), than is truly good for it. They are starting to seriously warp and twist our legal/governmental system. The constitution should be such that the lay person should be able to understand it, and should be familiar with it. The fact that I am not…I blame both myself and the system. I SHOULD take more time to study it in depth. However…then I get back to the old GIGO rule. It’s now WAY too big… almost makes one wish for an anarchy. Almost.
Hyperbole much? If you’ve never seen worse arguments than that, you’ve never watched CNN’s lineup of debate shows.
Apos:
No, sir, no hyperbole - quite literal. But I must admit I’ve never watched CNN’s debates shows so my experience with ludicrous arguments might be somewhat limited.
I can’t agree with this.
In the current climate, you are correct in stating propositions such as the ones given as examples would have no chance of passage.
What I don’t understand is how the example is “lacking any logic,” and thus reinforces the opposing point. I think such an example is a very clear example of the courts overruling a (hypothetical) popular initiative on the basis of its unconstitutionality. You don’t, I take it?
Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting your words, but as I understand it you’re saying that a reader will see the proposed example, judge it to be utterly preposterous, and thus conclude that it has absolutely no bearing on the topic of discussion. I don’t think they’d conclude such unless they themselves were “lacking in logic”, as it clearly does: it’s an extreme example, but an example nontheless.
Were an example given in which the struck-down law were less blatantly unconstitutional, I think the point would be weakened, not strengthened as you seem to suggest.
It’s kind of cliche, but other than that I fail to see the problem.
I will concede that the “lacking any logic” snipe was over the top. It contained logic; just what seemed to be desperate logic.
As for reinforcing the opposing point, it strikes me that at times when a poster has a hard time arguing a particular point, they try to characterize the opposing viewpoint as something silly or obviously unsound in an attempt to make the opposing argument easier to face off against. When I see that, I take it to mean that they are pissed about what is being said but can’t formulate a good argument which hence tends to add credibility to the opposing argument. Hope that clarifies what I meant.
For a judge to turn a blind eye to constitution merely to uphold a law that was passed by a majority would be to shirk his duties as a judge.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. Judges are obligated to follow the federal constitution and the constitution of their state , regardless of popular sentiment.
The point was, it should not have been before a federal judge in the first place. California, however, has such a high ratio of attorneys to citizens, that it is nearly impossible to progress; each time someone disagrees, litigation seems the only answer, and we are back at square one. It is frustrating in the extreme that “loophole” is such a huge tool in the law.
If the constitution of california, or the laws of the state of california only allowed country officials to set welfare standards, then the judge is obligated to follow those laws regardless of his personal feelings about the propriety of what the voters did.
The proper thing for a frustrated local voter to do in this case would be to contact their state legislators about having the laws changed to allow for local referendums on welfare.