You may be right, but I always read his “hard work, focus and dedication” as “maniacal ambition to become famous”. In my eyes, you could say the same thing about Britney Spears, and I’d take her just as seriously as a gubernatorial candidate, no matter what party she was affiliated with. Obviously, Arnie has more political smarts than Britney, but, as his position on gay marriage shows, not that much more. Did you even pay attention to his campaign? It was indistinguishable from him doing press for one of his shitty movies.
Who wants Arnold to run for President?
Because Grey Davis is an evil, evil man who was RUINING California!! That, and he’s more photogenic than the whiny assed bitch who initiated the recall in the first place. If the Republicans had actually gone with that wussy little girl, they never would’ve gotten the recall and they knew it.
Yeah, it’s funny how a member of the party that’s always screaming about activist judges legislating from the bench on this issue instead of allowing the will of the people as embodied in their elected representatives to make the decision has now declared that it’s better for the judges to decide this since the elected representatives went against that particular party line.
There’s a movement to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to hold the office of President. There’s some talk in the blogosphere that Arnie himself is behind at least one of the groups spearheading the effort. Whether Herr Gropenator is directly involved or not, he is frequently held up as someone who would be such a wonderful president if it weren’t for that gosh-darn Constitutional restriction.
Shit on a shingle, Otto. Care to come up with something more substantive than “some talk in the blogosphere”? And just how big is this movement? There’s a movement to have Zolton nominated for the next Senate elections, I’m sure.
On the lighter side. Am I the only one that would love to be a fly on the wall at Christmas in the Kennedy Compound this year?
I hate the hypocrisy.
If you’re a Republican, you have to suck the cock of the Religious Right. It isn’t about “activist judges” or “the will of the people.” It is about, “I need money from the fundies to win again.”
Yet, Arnold could have been unique. He doesn’t need the job of Governor of California. He is already a millionaire. He could have signed the bill and not ran for reelection.
I also wonder, in all honesty, if some members of the assembly would have voted for it knowing that Arnie would sign it into law. I’m under no illusion that same sex marriage is a winning issue for Democratic Hispanic legislators.
Step 1: California adopts a new state Constitution via Constitutional Convention with an equal protection clause in 1879 (they threw out the state Constitution of 1849).
Step 2: California adopts the initiavtive process in the state constitution in 1911. The state constitution provides that the legislature has no power to amend or repeal an initiative, and the power to amend or repeal an initiative lies solely with the electorate. The public policy is essentially that the people should be allowed to bypass the legislature on a single issue, via an initiative, if the legislature does not reflect the will of the people. If the legislature could undo an initiative by legislative act, then the initiative process would be useless.
Step 3: California electorate approves the Proposition 22 initiative in 2000. It states that only a marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in California. The legislature has no power to amend or repeal Prop. 22 (see Step 2).
Step 4: SSM advocates challenge Prop. 22 in the courts. The cases are making their way up to the state Supreme Court. The argument is that Prop. 22 is unconatitutional in that it violates the equal protection clause in the state constitution (see Step 1).
Step 5: California legislature adopts AB849, purportedly allowing SSM in California. However, AB849 arguably has the effect of repealing the Prop. 22 initiative, by an legislative act. Thus, AB849 is arguably unconstitutional (See Step 2).
Therefore:
-
If Prop. 22 is unconstitutional, in that it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution, then AB849 is unnecessary, as the state equal protection clause guarantees SSM.
-
If Prop. 22 is constitutional, then AB849 is unconstitutional as a legislative act that has the effect of repealing an initiative.
To put it more succinctly, AB849 is either redundant or unconstitutional.
His reasoning makes sense; I got it without your good explanation. But it’s still not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that he just didn’t want to stick his thick, veiny neck out and this is his excuse.
You evidently disagree with him, but he’s evidently a man of his word, and for that you should respect him.
Your claim would be much more credible if you had not elected Grey Davis in the first place. California’s track record is … not great, lately. :dubious:
Excellent post, Bearflag.
Like was already stated, we were in an Anyone But Davis mood. We had just started to recover from the Enron/rolling blackout/rate hike fiasco, there was the daily (damn near hourly) reporting of new corruption accusations in the news (payolas, kickbacks, contractors making big money to do nothing), favoritism in state government, billions of dollars missing (which “necessitated” fee/rate/tax hikes), no accountability, etc etc etc. California was your basic example of How To Flush Your State Down The Toilet.
Then along came Arnold. He was NOT Gray Davis. Big point in his favor. He said the right words and made the right promises. Clean up Sacramento. Wipe out cronyism and corruption. Make government more efficient and more accountable. A carefully groomed image of being gay friendly, or at least gay tolerant. In short, he was NOT Davis and he made the right noises.
A governor who can promise to veto and bill and then veto it? Amazing!
How does this veto jibe with his earlier words about his support for gays and civil unions, Quartz?
So, if I say I’m going to kick you in the nuts, and then I go and actually do it… you’d be okay with that?
Your analysis is flawed at this point. Prop 22 amended Section 308 by adding Section 308.5.
Section 308 only deals with recognizing marriages from out of state. Section 300 actually defines marriage:
Therefore, if the legislature modifies 300, section 308.5 becomes incorrect and most likely unconsititutional without the Legislature even touching it. Even then, though, it only applies to out-of-state marriages.
California teachers would disagree that he kept his word on the education budget.
Just like his latest movies–straight to veteo.
No, you’re not. And I think Arnold was correct in vetoing the bill, for exactly the reasons he stated. I wish more politicians would think that clearly instead of simply kneejerking for votes.