FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Proposition 8: Starr argues that any right can be taken
Proposition 8: Starr argues that any right can be taken
An interaction between Chief Justice Ronald George and Kenneth Starr, who is defending Proposition 8, gets to the heart of the argument.
Starr argues that voters have an inalienable right to amend the state constitution as they see fit through simple majority vote, inlcuding "things that tug at the equality principle." But George leans in on the question and asks whether, if Proposition 8 had specifically said that homosexuals had no right to form a family relationship or raise children, that still could be done by amendment? Starr replies yes.
George pursues it further, asking if California voters could remove the right to free speech? Starr says yes.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=5143
Posted by Veterans Today on Mar 5 2009, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
In the fairness of full disclosure, I must admit I’m a supporter of Prop 8. However, Starr is wrong. California could not amend their Constitution to remove free speach as it is in the US Constitution and would over ride CA’s. However, if the US Citizens voted to remove free speach, i do not see why it couldn’t be removed from the US Constitution. So if he were talking about CA, he’s wrong. If he was talking about the US, i think he’s right.
If it ever did pass, free speach wouldn’t be the only thing to leave the US. My family and me would be right behind it!
Patrick, as I see it, the Supreme Court is in a bind here because their decision to affirm same sex marriages of a few months ago puts them in the position to be reversed by The People, and Justices dont think in terms of any one over riding them?
The questions pivot on whether prop 8 is an amendment to the CA constitution or a revision? And no where in the prop does it say one or the other per se, but the application of the prop does either or depending on who you ask?
At prenet the legislature must come to a 2-3rds majority to do that, by the way, they dont like being over ruled either?
But in a far reaching point of view Starr says any right can be taken away by the simple majority vote incluidng the 1st amendment and any other ones which I for one hold as inalienable rights, a state of affairs I stand with AG Jerry Brown on which Starr ridiculed as quaint.
In one point of view expressed during the hearing a lawyer representing one of the joined respondents made yet another argument that said the state must stay out of the marriage business entirely, and then must declare all marriages a civil union if the same sex marriage after having been affirmed by the Supreme Court as equal before the law is now stricken, because the equal protecttion clause calls for it.
If Starr and those of his ilk can in fact vote away the constitution as transient matters and not a living document then the blood of patriots, who fought for the rights we hold as self evident among those, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even the lives of those who in the pursuit of their personal happiness choose an alternate life style than you and me, then the republic will need patriots to stand thier ground here, dont leave Patrick, stand with them or fight with us?