Posted by
TheChair on Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:58:41 AM
Robert Alt at NRO's Benchmemos tackles Prof. Geoff Stone's argument that Prop. 8's enactment was an improper religious enactment. I liked this paragraph, a mini-analysis of the legal case against Prop. 8:
The arguments made are pretty thin gruel, and turn on a technical question of whether the change should be an amendment, which can be passed (as Prop. 8 was) by a majority vote of the people after collecting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, or whether it is such a drastic change that it needed to go through the more arduous process of constitutional revision. Deep down, some of the lawyers making these arguments had to find it ironic to argue that the state Constitution could not be modified to change the right to marriage through the formal amendment process, including the approval of a majority of voters, but that it could be done by four judges who changed the law by their own fiat. The case law is pretty strongly against those challenging Prop. 8, enough so that I think even the California Supreme Court will have trouble legislating . . . oops, I mean carefully legally reasoning their way to the conclusion that Prop. 8 is unlawful.
This part in bold reminds me of a good point a friend made. He wondered how Prop. 8 could possibly be cast aside as a "revision" when 4 of 7 justices could make such radical changes to our state constitution without that also being a "revision."