If you don't like that part of the constitution...
-
...then just toss it out[^]. Set aside you opinion of the controversial amendment for a moment. I'm hoping that Louisiana didn't model their government after that of the federal one. If they did then any amendment in the US constitution (I guess that includes my bill of rights) could be in jeopardy by an over zealous judge. Perhaps I'm just confused about the situation in general :confused:
-
...then just toss it out[^]. Set aside you opinion of the controversial amendment for a moment. I'm hoping that Louisiana didn't model their government after that of the federal one. If they did then any amendment in the US constitution (I guess that includes my bill of rights) could be in jeopardy by an over zealous judge. Perhaps I'm just confused about the situation in general :confused:
Why do you assume this is an over-zealous judge? Do you mean a "activist" judge? I am not a constitutional scholar, but.. I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. We've had various constitutional amendmants overturned by the courts here in Oregon many times in the last few years. I'm always shocked at the ridiculous stuff that makes it into the state constitution: tax rates for mobile homes, etc. A lot of it just doesn't belong there.
-
Why do you assume this is an over-zealous judge? Do you mean a "activist" judge? I am not a constitutional scholar, but.. I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. We've had various constitutional amendmants overturned by the courts here in Oregon many times in the last few years. I'm always shocked at the ridiculous stuff that makes it into the state constitution: tax rates for mobile homes, etc. A lot of it just doesn't belong there.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. What US Constituitional right do you think was being denied via the LA amendment? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Why do you assume this is an over-zealous judge? Do you mean a "activist" judge? I am not a constitutional scholar, but.. I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. We've had various constitutional amendmants overturned by the courts here in Oregon many times in the last few years. I'm always shocked at the ridiculous stuff that makes it into the state constitution: tax rates for mobile homes, etc. A lot of it just doesn't belong there.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Why do you assume this is an over-zealous judge? Do you mean a "activist" judge? I should have chosen my words more carefully. But, yes I think I mean activist or someone who goes against the will of the people. Jim A. Johnson wrote: I am not a constitutional scholar, but.. I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. That makes perfect sense, but it wasn't a US court that tossed out the amendment in this case. It was a state court. Jim A. Johnson wrote: We've had various constitutional amendmants overturned by the courts here in Oregon many times in the last few years. I'm always shocked at the ridiculous stuff that makes it into the state constitution: tax rates for mobile homes, etc. A lot of it just doesn't belong there. If a court can remove parts of the constitution in Oregon then I'm assuming that Oregon's government is not modeled after the US which sounds like a good thing since Oregon makes it too easy for the people to modify its constitution in the first place.
-
...then just toss it out[^]. Set aside you opinion of the controversial amendment for a moment. I'm hoping that Louisiana didn't model their government after that of the federal one. If they did then any amendment in the US constitution (I guess that includes my bill of rights) could be in jeopardy by an over zealous judge. Perhaps I'm just confused about the situation in general :confused:
AS I understand the article cited, the issue was not with the ammendment per se, but with the finding that it violated their own constitution by having more than one purpose. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
Why do you assume this is an over-zealous judge? Do you mean a "activist" judge? I am not a constitutional scholar, but.. I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. We've had various constitutional amendmants overturned by the courts here in Oregon many times in the last few years. I'm always shocked at the ridiculous stuff that makes it into the state constitution: tax rates for mobile homes, etc. A lot of it just doesn't belong there.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: I think that State constitutions are not allowed to take away rights granted by the Federal constitution. The federal constitution was crafted to achieve precisely the opposite - to deny the federal government the power to interfer with the State's granting or denial of rights. (You have to remember that most of the framers of the federal constitution were far more concerned about their careers in their home states and would have been loath to give the new federal government the power to interfer with state legislation.) "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
...then just toss it out[^]. Set aside you opinion of the controversial amendment for a moment. I'm hoping that Louisiana didn't model their government after that of the federal one. If they did then any amendment in the US constitution (I guess that includes my bill of rights) could be in jeopardy by an over zealous judge. Perhaps I'm just confused about the situation in general :confused:
Every constitution specifies the method(s) by which it can be amended and any purported amendment that violates those rules is invalid. According to the story, the judge ruled that the amendment broke the rules because a single amendment covered two issues: the banning of gay marriage and the banning of gay civil unions. I can't comment on the merits of this argument. I just point out that respecting the constitution includes respecting the rules specifying how it can be changed. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
Every constitution specifies the method(s) by which it can be amended and any purported amendment that violates those rules is invalid. According to the story, the judge ruled that the amendment broke the rules because a single amendment covered two issues: the banning of gay marriage and the banning of gay civil unions. I can't comment on the merits of this argument. I just point out that respecting the constitution includes respecting the rules specifying how it can be changed. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
John Carson wrote: According to the story, the judge ruled that the amendment broke the rules because a single amendment covered two issues: the banning of gay marriage and the banning of gay civil unions. After reading the article again I can see that it is clearly stated.