Them crazy activists judges are at it again.
Can anyone talk about the meaning of this? Is this really just a procedural issue–that is, if the measure had been divided in half, would both halves have been copacetic? Or is the problem specifically with the banning civil unions part?
I’m happy at the result, but not clear on why it happened.
And hopefully this won’t get buried under the veep debate.
Daniel
This will almost certainly go to the state Supreme Court. But if it gets overturned at that level, it’ll get spun back out as either 2 seperate initiatives, or one that deals exclusively with SSM. And the SSM part will pass again, probably by an even bigger margin since some of the voters might have objected to the anti civil union aspect. In most states, SSM just isn’t an issue that is going to fly. Not for a long while yet.
I am not a lawyer, definitely not a constitutional scholar, but I can search the Internet a little and found the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974. Here is the relevant paragraph, with the important phrase bolded (by me, of course):
Obviously, this comes down to whether or not the amendment as passed was confined to one object or not. It seems to me the problem is procedural, but this topic is rarely covered on Law & Order, so you shouldn’t go by my opinion.
Mmmm. I should get in touch with Dick Wolf. *Law & Order: Constitutional Crises * could be a pretty good series.
Dorkness: You might get some more comments from real lawyers if you ask the mods to change your title to specifically ask for their input. I will expect that **Bricker **will be along shortly since he started a thread on this topic not long ago.
Right.
However let’s remember that a lot of the anti-SSM legislation, including the blessedly failed Federal Marriage Amendment, explicitly incorporates into the restriction any form of contract that grants “the legal effects of marriage”. This, because the anti-SSM bunch views civil union as a foot-in-the-door move. If this establishes in any way a trend towards forcing a separation of the issue, it could get interesting.
This will have, at best, the effect of the Court having said: “Hold it… take a deep breath, are you sure you know what it means to do what you just said you want to do?”
Note the text of the Louisiana State Constitution which Julius Henry courteously and helpfully quoted.
A state Constitutional amendment, duly and properly enacted and ratified, trumps any state statute and governs any court decision. But to get to that point, it must comply with the provisions for amending the state constitution. And in the opinion of the court, this one did not.
To erect some parallels, contemplate these two hypothetical legal documents:
There are innate flaws in both these hypothetical amendments: the first is a blatant violation of the single subject provision of the State Constitution; the second enables itself to be passed by a means contrary to the existing provisions for amending the Constitution.
This is a case where procedural due process comes into effect: neither law, no matter how well liked they may be, can be duly passed because both violate the consensually agreed and constitutionally defined means whereby amendments to a given constitution may be adopted.
Split #1 into two pieces, and it could be adopted. Drop Section Two from #2 and substitute the usual seven-year clause, and it could be adopted. (Whether it should be is a different debate.) But as it stands, neither can be validly adopted because both violate the existing procedural rules for enacting amendments.
I think someone familiar with the text of the proposed Louisiana amendment and with Louisiana law (which has a few quirks compared to the rest of the U.S., thanks to its partial ancestry in French civil law) would have to examine the situation and explain how the voted-down amendment violates the single subject provision of the Louisiana constitution. But presuming that the judge is not completely out to lunch, it’s as much a violation as is my example #1.
An update: