Citizens vote for Constitutional Amendment?

[Ensign Steve]

California Proposition 8 (2008 - Ballotpedia)

The California Supreme Court made news recently when it ruled a same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Now we have some blowback in the form of Prop 8 (above), which would once again ban the marriages. I was thinking about it, and I thought, "What difference does it make what the majority votes? If the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, that's it, right? That's (one of) the point(s) of the [state] Constitution and the SCOTSOC (or whatever), isn't it? To protect the minority from the whims of the majority, when said whim is to take away inalienable liberties? The only thing that could make the ban not unconstitutional would be a constitutional amendment." Yes, I really thought all that, with the parentheticals and everything.

So now I look at the text wiki of the proposition, and I see that that's exactly what we're voting for. A constitutional amendment. WTF? Is that how it works? The people just vote to amend the constitution? What the hell is the point of the legislature and the supreme court? How does that protect the minority from the majority? Am I missing a step? Does the SCOTSOC get to turn around and say "no" all over again if they feel like it? If so, how long do we keep going around in circles like this?

Lawyer and constitution types, please help. I am confused.

[ChuckF]

As I understand it, the state Supreme Court (like SCOTUS) determines what is constitutional according to the state constitution. So if the constitution is amended, that amendment is by definition constitutional, and therefore beyond review by the courts.

I think one of the things you're getting at is a contentious and interesting problem of political science. Referendums (referenda? referendixxiv?) can be very efficient destroyers of political institutions.

[Dingfod]

I'm not reading it to find out, the California Constitution is over 110 pages long.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

As I understand it, the state Supreme Court (like SCOTUS) determines what is constitutional according to the state constitution. So if the constitution is amended, that amendment is by definition constitutional, and therefore beyond review by the courts.

And that's really all it takes to get an amendment? A majority vote of the people? What if 51% of Californians wanted to, say, require prayer in school or illegalize muslim head-coverings? (Violation of the US Constitution aside.) Could they really do that? It's just blowing my mind that a majority vote of the people is all it takes to amend our constitution. I feel like there just needs to be more checks and balances than that. Is it the same for the US constitution? If so, how the hell is school prayer not already on there?

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

The US Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Hey, this is cool: Main Page - Ballotpedia

Have y'all heard all the stars talking about Prop. 8? Brad Pitt donated $100k to fight the ban and chided stars for not speaking out against it.

[Deadlokd]

This is what democracy is about ES. The will of the people, or more correctly, the will of the majority of the people. It isn't about truth, liberty and the great American Freedoms, it's about the wishes of the majority.

To allow prayer in schools would require changing the US Constitution, which is different and probably harder.

ETA: What CC said.

[fragment]

That sounds crazy.

How about campaigning for a referendum to amend the California constitution so that further amendments require a 75% majority or something?

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

This is what democracy is about ES. The will of the people, or more correctly, the will of the majority of the people.

I know what a fucking democracy is. It's four wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Good thing I live in a republic.

[Dingfod]

The USA is not a democracy. Apparently California is.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I know what a fucking democracy is. It's four wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Good thing I live in a republic.

What's the difference? The minority must still largely live at the whim of the majority.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I know what a fucking democracy is. It's four wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Good thing I live in a republic.

Well... the US is a representative democracy and a republic. A republic just means there is no monarchy or equivalent institution, and generally that there is more distributed power.

But a referendum is pretty much direct democracy, so that's what's going on there.

It does seem weird that California's Constitution is so easy to amend - presumably the point of having a law be in the constitution rather than being a regular law is that it should be stronger and harder to make changes to. It ought to require at least a supermajority to change a constitution, imo.

[godfry n. glad]

Referendum, Recall and Initiative.

I was taught that my state, Oregon, was one of the first to pass these laws. It was a partial answer to the problem of corrupt legislators.

They are, on their face, flying directly in the face of most of the founders of the United States, who had a distinct suspicion of mobs and mob decision-making. Much of the whole 'checks and balances' was to restrain popular enthusiasm from entirely controlling governance. They believed that some were meant to rule and would rise to that place within their community. Of course, communications at the time augured for a representative to present the concerns of the community to the state and the nation. Our founders felt that those selected by their communities to represent them would have adequate understanding of their community to represent the community's interest in the deliberations of the state, or nation. Time was the other element, as it was perceived that popular enthusiasms burned themselves out...thus the staggered representation (2 yrs., 4 yrs., 6 yrs., life), and the states (meaning the state legislature) selecting the senators.

Needless to say, their blindness in other realms didn't take long to evidence itself in the machinations of the new nation. Political parties and pressure groups evidenced themselves quite soon.

One of the results of the pushes for reform during the "Progressive Era" in US history was the desire to give the people more say in their governance. It came along with efforts at prohibition, interest in civil rights (the ACLU being a Progressive product), clean meat, yellow journalism, suffrage for women, trust busting, and general moral improvement (and the dawn of Fundamentalism). Reformers, don't chya know?

We here in Oregon tried to put a hurtle in the way by requiring that they collect sufficient number of voter signatures on petitions that clearly state the ballot measure. Sometimes, being an Oregon voter in the middle of the state's largest urban agglomeration is a huge pain in the ass....like the month prior to petition due date.

This all sounds wondrously open and transparent governance process, right?

At the time, it was a step forward. But, time allows learning and those attempting to work the system give it all their attention. In my youth, paid signature gatherers came into being. (Paid voters - derelict winos trucked in from the big city - came later, with the Bhagwan Sri Rajnish.) The past twenty years, my state has been cursed by nutjob signature gathering campaign specialists. One man, in particular, has made it a lifetime career of being Oregon's political whackjob petitioner. But, still, signatures must be collected. The thing has got to be described to a certain amount of the ignorant public....

I won't sign the things any more. I don't care what it is. I agree, I've elected representatives to the state legislature. It's their job to make those decisions....not a bunch of ideologues who want to take a bunch of big bucks to advance their narrow agenda.

Of course, these whackjobs do keep our mind off other things, like derivatives, land developer frauds, privately catered wars, and our expanding public and private debt.

[Clutch Munny]

Peering down south at the US, I confess to longstanding confusion over the proliferation of Prop This and Prop That over the years, many of them dealing with fundamental rights -- i.e., stuff that ought to be handled only by legislative votes among the lawyers, gentlemen, and former used car salesm conservatives that are one's elected representatives.

How colonial of me, I guess.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by erimir

It does seem weird that California's Constitution is so easy to amend - presumably the point of having a law be in the constitution rather than being a regular law is that it should be stronger and harder to make changes to. It ought to require at least a supermajority to change a constitution, imo.

To be honest, I don't know whether it takes a simple majority or what. I was just surprised to see that we got to vote on it at all in the first place.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Peering down south at the US, I confess to longstanding confusion over the proliferation of Prop This and Prop That over the years, many of them dealing with fundamental rights

Okay, good. At least now I know it's not just me.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

when said whim is to take away inalienable liberties?

Not understanding that the "right" contended for is nothing like inalienable, neither can you understand that this amendment is an attempt by the majority to prevent tyranny by a small minority.

[Ensign Steve]

Oh, you guys, I came up with another example. We have already banned cigarette smoking in all but a very few places. If 51% of the people (assuming a simple majority is all that's necessary) wanted to make cigarette smoking completely illegal within the State of California by constitutional amendment, could they do so just by voting on a proposition? There's nothing in the US constitution to prevent that, so what's to stop us?

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by yguy

Not understanding that the "right" contended for is nothing like inalienable, neither can you understand that this amendment is an attempt by the majority to prevent tyranny by a small minority.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Peering down south at the US, I confess to longstanding confusion over the proliferation of Prop This and Prop That over the years, many of them dealing with fundamental rights -- i.e., stuff that ought to be handled only by legislative votes among the lawyers, gentlemen, and former used car salesm conservatives that are one's elected representatives.

How colonial of me, I guess.

Please forgive the slowness with which the empire moves. We will get around to annexing you hosers ASAP. This will have the added benefit of settling that silly French/English language debate. You new official tongue will be the same as ours.

show spoiler

Spanish

[ChuckF]

I'm always kind of surprised that anybody still pretends to care about banning gay marriage. That's such a 2004/6 wedge issue. Ellen's married now y'all; time to find a new fear fetish.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I'm always kind of surprised that anybody still [refuses to believe the lies held as canonical by the indoctrinated masses].

Yeah, I know. There are still a few people left who understand that if you can be made to believe in the trivially absurd, you also can be made to believe in the catastrophically absurd.

[D. Scarlatti]

"tyranny"

....

[Ensign Steve]

Quit screwing around and answer the question.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Peering down south at the US, I confess to longstanding confusion over the proliferation of Prop This and Prop That over the years, many of them dealing with fundamental rights -- i.e., stuff that ought to be handled only by legislative votes among the lawyers, gentlemen, and former used car salesm conservatives that are one's elected representatives.

How colonial of me, I guess.

Canuckistan is colony?

There's a certain segment of the populace which actually thinks it's good at making public policy decisions. They want the authority without the responsibility. This way, if the idea is challenged, or fucks up bigtime, they can point to the public.....well, the public that voted.

Manipulating this collection has become a popular pastime in these parts, and has spread to other states.

Thankfully, in my state, we have had some excellent activist judges who have even defied public sentiment to strike down initiative legislation. Still, our whole state tax system is rigged by initiative measures of the past. It's nuts.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by yguy

this amendment is an attempt by the majority to prevent tyranny by a small minority.

Originally Posted by yguy

Yeah, I know. There are still a few people left who understand [yada yada yada]

Could you clarify which is the minority and which is the majority here?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

WTF? Is that how it works? The people just vote to amend the constitution?

That's what it says here:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

Oh, the tyranny!