from LBReport.com
The Attorney General's office legal brief -- to which LBReport.com provides a link in full below -- states in pertinent part:
"Respondent Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state [citation omitted]. In that capacity, he is duty bound to uphold of the whole of the Constitution, not only the People's reservation of the initiative power, but also the People's expression of their will in the Constitution's Declaration of Rights (Cal. Const., art. I, section 1.) In reconciling these separate constitutional protections, Respondent concludes that the initiative power could never have been intended to give the voters an unfettered prerogative to to amend the Constitution for the for the purpose of depriving a disfavored group of rights determined by the Supreme Court to be part of fundamental human liberty...
...The use of the initiative power to take away a legal right deemed by this Court to be fundamental and from a group defined by a suspect classification is a matter of deep concern. Existing precedents of this Court do not support the invalidation of Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation of powers. However, Proposition 8 should be invalidated as violating the inalienable right of liberty found in article I, sectino 1 of our Constitution."
"In the brief, AG Brown doesn't support an argument made by some challengers to to Prop 8 that existing case-law precedents invalidate Prop 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine." LBReport
"Instead, AG Brown argues that Prop 8 should be invalidated because the Supreme Court concluded (4-3) earlier this year that Article I, section 1 of the CA Constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples...and to invalidate such a fundamental right requires the Court to find a compelling justification. Since a majority of the High Court found no such compelling justification, Prop 8 must be stricken, AG Brown argues."LBReport
No comments:
Post a Comment