December 21, 2008

Latest moonbat legal theory:

You can't pass a constitutional amendment because it's ... unconstitutional.

Whaaa ... ??

In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."

It is the attorney general's duty to defend the state's laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.

But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." (Link.)

Just imagine if the US Supreme Court attempted to "invalidate" a constitutional amendment passed by Congress (2/3 of both houses) and the requisite 3/4 of the state legislatures by ruling that the amendment was ... "unconstitutional." Um, that would be like missing the entire point -- of a thing called "checks and balances."

UPDATE: John Rosenberg offers his biting take on this.

Posted by Hube at December 21, 2008 10:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Post a comment

Remember personal info?