lawrocket 3 #101 March 7, 2009 I also wonder why thry didn't raise the 14th amendment at all. It isn't an issue. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #102 March 7, 2009 Quote what is the PROCESS to get said state constitutional amendment struck down under the FEDERAL 14th amendment You challenge the California amendment on the basis that it violates the 14th Amendment. It's one of the things I'm stumped about - why they didn't do that. I think it's a helluva good argument - certainly better than claiming it is "unconstitutional" under the CA constitution, or that it is a "revision" instead of an amendment. QuoteI've been reading that it will never go to the USSC, because it's a california matter. But if the state's constitution violates the federal, what then The SCOTUS doesn't comment on California law. All it would have taken is, "This violates the 14th." My opinion on it? First, it's new ground. Gays haven't ever been held to be a protected class. Second - check out the makeup of the SCOTUS. Picture 8 years of Obama and maybe a Dem successor. Once they get a cout makeup that they think will be favorable, they'll bring up the federal Constitution to make it a national protection. That's my thought. QuoteYou would expect it to be challenged in court. Is that not what's happening now with prop 8? Nope. Which is possibly a source of confusion as to why I say "it's constitutional." The CA Constitution is all we're talking about in these three cases challenging it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
