# San Francisco's Mayor Proves that Patriot Act is Constitutional! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314 "2004-03-03T15:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/1 "2004-03-03T15:27:01Z")
If it is right for the mayor of San Francisco to unilaterally rule, without authorization from state supreme court, that California’s law restricting marriage to “one man and one woman” is unconstitutional according to the constitution of the state of California, then George W. Bush is exactly as right to unilaterally rule, without authorization from the US Supreme Court, that his “Patriot Act” is Constitutional according to the Constitution of the United States of America. If one executive branch official, anywhere within the USA, has the power to unilaterally determine constitutionality, then all executive branch officials, everywhere within the USA, have the power to unilaterally determine constitutionality–at least within their respective levels of government. ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/2 "2004-03-03T15:38:49Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > If it is right for the mayor of San Francisco to unilaterally rule, without authorization from state supreme court, that California’s law restricting marriage to “one man and one woman” is unconstitutional according to the constitution of the state of California, then George W. Bush is exactly as right to unilaterally rule, without authorization from the US Supreme Court, that his “Patriot Act” is Constitutional according to the Constitution of the United States of America. > > If one executive branch official, anywhere within the USA, has the power to unilaterally determine constitutionality, then all executive branch officials, everywhere within the USA, have the power to unilaterally determine constitutionality–at least within their respective levels of government. The mayor of San Francisco has not ‘ruled’ that the law regarding restrictions on marriages in unconstitutional. He is maintaining that it is and he is acting on that assumption. It is up to the California Sumpreme Court, if asked, to decide whether he is right or not. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/3 "2004-03-03T15:40:23Z")
> [@Faldage](#): > > The mayor of San Francisco has not ‘ruled’ that the law regarding restrictions on marriages in unconstitutional. He is maintaining that it is and he is acting on that assumption. It is up to the California Sumpreme Court, if asked, to decide whether he is right or not. And the exact same thing can be said about George Bush and the Patriot Act. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/4 "2004-03-03T16:10:03Z")
Newsome is _challenging_ the constitutionality of California’s We Hate Gay People law through civil disobedience. He’s not declaring it unconstitutional, he’s asking the courts to decide if it is or not. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/5 "2004-03-03T16:18:22Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > And the exact same thing can be said about George Bush and the Patriot Act. Well, yeah. Was anybody arguing otherwise? Neither Bush nor the mayor of SF nor even Judge Moore (the 10-Commandments judge) needs _prior_ authorization from the courts to act in a manner of dubious legality/Constitutionality. But the appropriate courts get to rule on whether they’ve overstepped the bounds of their authority, if a case gets brought before them. And if a court having jurisdiction says they have overstepped, then they’ve got to stop. If the Supremes tell Bush that portions of the Patriot Act he’s been using are unconstitutional, I have little doubt that he will cease claiming those portions as authority to act. And if the California courts tell the SF mayor that his interpretation of the CA constitution is off-base, then I’m sure he’ll stop granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That’s how it works, and it’s the same standard for everybody. (What distinguishes Judge Moore from the others is that, even _after_ the courts ruled that his display of the Ten Commandments violated the First Amendment, he refused to remove his display. He acted as if the rules didn’t apply to him.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/6 "2004-03-03T17:52:07Z")
(applause dies down…) Thank you very much, thank you. The 2004 SDMB Award for Most Perfect Illustration of the Principle of _Non Sequiter_ goes to…(rips open envelope)… (The crowd gasps in _faux_ suspense, but everybody knows it was always **Dogface** bravura performance in San Francisco Mayor, hands down.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/7 "2004-03-03T18:02:53Z")
The Patriot act was passed by Congress. Congress can pretty much pass any law it wants, and the SCotUS can rule against it, if it’s challenged. Newsom is acting in clear violation of a law. He can call it civil disobedience, but he can’t claim to be acting lawfully. There is a process for challenging a law in the courts, and Newsom is not following it. **’Luci** is right about the _non sequit **u** r_ in the OP, although we’d probably arrive at that conclusion from different ends of the spectrum (rainbow?), so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![robo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@robo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robo99)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/8 "2004-03-03T18:48:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The Patriot act was passed by Congress. Congress can pretty much pass any law it wants, and the SCotUS can rule against it, if it’s challenged. > > Newsom is acting in clear violation of a law. He can call it civil disobedience, but he can’t claim to be acting lawfully. There is a process for challenging a law in the courts, and Newsom is not following it. > > **’Luci** is right about the _non sequit **u** r_ in the OP, although we’d probably arrive at that conclusion from different ends of the spectrum (rainbow?), so to speak. The process for challenging the law is the exact one he is following. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/9 "2004-03-03T18:52:42Z")
> [@robo99](#): > > The process for challenging the law is the exact one he is following. Explain to me again the difference between the process used in MA and the process used in SF? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/10 "2004-03-03T18:56:18Z")
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is Chewbacca… ---
**Author:** ![robo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@robo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robo99)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/11 "2004-03-03T18:58:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Explain to me again the difference between the process used in MA and the process used in SF? I don’t know the specifics of the MA case. Basically the process is: 1. The law is written. 2. The law is broken 3. The court rules whether the law is valid. The court won’t hear a case unless a law has been broken in the first place. Courts don’t review laws on a whim. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/12 "2004-03-03T19:03:37Z")
The whole Mass. thing has been obscured by “activist” rhetoric. All they did was point out the obvious. When the law was written, they said two “persons”, not two oppositely gendered persons, nor any other qualifiers. Just “persons”. So if the law doesn’t specify, neither can anyone else in defining marriage in Mass. Perfectly obvious. If the Mass. Legislature wanted to prevent marriage between dogs and cats, they have to _specificly_ say so. They didn’t, so tough titty. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/13 "2004-03-03T19:05:14Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is Chewbacca… Well that just doesn’t make any sense… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/14 "2004-03-03T19:19:25Z")
> [@robo99](#): > > I don’t know the specifics of the MA case. Basically the process is: > > 1. The law is written. > 2. The law is broken > 3. The court rules whether the law is valid. > > The court won’t hear a case unless a law has been broken in the first place. Courts don’t review laws on a whim. Do we have to do this again? A law can be challenged on constutional grounds without breaking that sepcific law. In challenging the law, you are claiming that it violates the constitution. In the strictest sense, you could argue that the legislature acted illegally in passing the unconstitutional law, but there is no mechanism for arresting any of the legislators for passing the law. Let’s look at how the [MA gay marriage ruling came about:](http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3935) > [@](#): > > The case, Goodridge vs. Massachusetts Department of Health, began when seven gay and lesbian couples from five different Massachusetts counties applied for marriage licenses in their respective jurisdictions. All were denied licenses. They then filed suit against the state in 2001. ---
**Author:** ![robo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@robo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robo99)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/15 "2004-03-03T19:23:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Do we have to do this again? A law can be challenged on constutional grounds without breaking that sepcific law. In challenging the law, you are claiming that it violates the constitution. In the strictest sense, you could argue that the legislature acted illegally in passing the unconstitutional law, but there is no mechanism for arresting any of the legislators for passing the law. > > Let’s look at how the [MA gay marriage ruling came about:](http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3935) O.K. fine, but still there are many cases in which laws are broken specifically so that the case can be heard. There is nothing inherently wrong with breaking a law - it’s just part of the process. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/16 "2004-03-03T19:31:32Z")
There is a difference between enforcing an unconstitutional restriction on civil rights and _refusing_ to enforce an unconstitutional restriction on civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/17 "2004-03-03T19:48:57Z")
I don’t think the Mayor’s actions should be viewed as civil disobedience. He is attempting to act lawfully. Newsom believes that it would be unconstitutional for him to deny marriages to same-sex couples. Therefore, he had to choose between either violating state law or violating the state constitution. He chose to obey the higher authority. Granting his premise that preventing SSM would be unconstitutional, I don’t see how anyone could dispute that he made the right choice. Now it is up to the courts to decide whether his premise itself was correct. People attempt to act in accordance with the law as they understand it. If someone else disputes their understanding of the law, the courts step in and decide which interpretation is correct. That’s how the system works. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/18 "2004-03-03T21:09:24Z")
Even if the Mayor did act identically to GWB, does the premise of the argument still hold? Namely, are the powers of one executive branch of any gov’t office identical to the executive powers of all gov’t offices? The original argument hinges on this. The last sentence of the OP should be the topic of this debate, shouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/19 "2004-03-03T21:19:16Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > The last sentence of the OP should be the topic of this debate, shouldn’t it? No, because the first clause of that sentence (“If one executive branch official, anywhere within the USA, has the power to unilaterally determine constitutionality”) is flat-out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314/20 "2004-03-04T13:09:44Z")
[QUOTE=robo99] The court won’t hear a case unless a law has been broken in the first place. QUOTE] Wrong. A suit can be filed on the grounds of civil rights violation. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-franciscos-mayor-proves-that-patriot-act-is-constitutional/232314.md?page=2)