Katie Peters Facebook Rebuttal

1) Do you know the difference between a Revision to the Constitution and an Amendment to the Constitution in the context of California Civil Procedure? If so, do you think Prop 8 classifies as an Amendment or a Revision. Since, the majority of legal scholars believe it is in fact a Revision, should have Protect Marriage circumvented the Revision Process?

2) What is the difference between a plurality, a simple majority, and a super majority? There are different requirements based on the type of referendum it is, Revisions require a super majority of the Legislature before being placed on the ballot. Prop 8 circumvented this requirement. 

3) Marbury v Madison … established judicial review of laws. Do you not believe in judicial review?

4) The Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government, should we get rid of the independent judiciary?

5) What is the process of becoming a justice on the California Supreme Court? Are you aware that they are actually approved by the people directly, so they are more or less elected by the people?

6) Did you realize that the California Legislature passed same-sex marriage on three separate occasions, but our Governor chose to deffer to the courts?

7) Both Turner v. Safley, Perez v Sharp, and Loving v Virgina said that marriage is a fundamental right. And, are you aware of the many differences between marriage and civil unions in California?

8) Are you aware of the three levels of scrutiny? Rational, Intermediate, and Strict, and which level must be applied to different types of “classes” of people? Are you aware that in California, LGBT is considered a protected class just like race or religion? That, if the state is to provide a service to one subgroup of people, it must provide the same service to all the people? For example, if it allows permits of licenses for whites, it must give it to all other races as well. Or, if they can give permits/licenses to Protestants, they have to give it to Catholics, Buddhists, Shinto, etc etc? Therefore, if they allow marriage licenses to straight people, they must also provide marriage licenses to LGBT people? So, they either allow marriage for ALL, or marriage for NONE. (That might very well be their decision.)

9) Have you bothered to read In Re: Marriage Cases, or ANY of the briefs filed? Are you aware of any other land mark court decisions which pertained to minority rights? Such as the court decision saying California Schools could not ban JWs from going to school because they refused to swear an oath to the flag? 

10) Should the general electorate be able to overturn any controversial court decision? How about Loving v Virginia? How about Lawrence v Texas? How about Brown v Board of Education? Perez v Sharp? Hernandez v Texas? One, Inc. v. Olesen, Speiser v. Randall, United States v. Raines, Boynton v. Virginia, Braunfeld v. Brown, Torcaso v. Watkins, Edwards v. South Carolina, Abington School District v. Schempp, Sherbert v. Verner, Griffin v. Maryland, segregation protests, Bell v. Maryland, McLaughlin v. Florida, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Katzenbach v. McClung, United States v. Seeger, Harman v. Forssenius, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, United States v. Price, Reitman v. Mulkey, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Reed v. Reed, Parisi v. Davidson, Cruz v. Beto, Wisconsin v. Yoder, San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, Frontiero v. Richardson, Geduldig v. Aiello, Milliken v. Bradley, Goss v. Lopez, Stanton v. Stanton, Rose v. Locke, Washington v. Davis, Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, Runyon v. McCrary, Craig v. Boren, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., Califano v. Goldfarb, McDaniel v. Paty, Cannon v. University of Chicago, United Steel Workers of America v. Weber, Fullilove v. Klutznick, Stone v. Graham, Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Widmar v. Vincent, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, United States v. Lee, Connick v. Myers, Bob Jones University v. United States, Marsh v. Chambers, Grove City College v. Bell, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allen v. Wright, Wallace v. Jaffree, Thornton v. Caldor, Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind, Bowen v. Roy, McCleskey v. Kemp, Turner v. Safley,O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA, City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, Westside School District v. Mergens, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, Lee v. Weisman, United States v. Fordice, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Adarand Constructors v. Peña, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, Romer v. Evans, United States v. Virginia, Agostini v. Felton, Rice v. Cayetano, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Grutter v. Bollinger, …. 

It seems to me, all you wanted to do was complain about activist judges who are not elected by the people. When in fact, in California they ARE elected by the people. Not only that, they have the role of judicial review and enforcing rights for minorities. And, the cases before the courts today do not have anything to do with the legality of same-sex marriage, but rather whether Prop 8 qualifies as an Amendment or a Revision. And, the court has ruled in three other cases that previously passed amendments should have been placed on the ballot as a Revision. Therefore, if the referendum process can be used to take any group of people’s rights or liberties, then ANY suspect classes rights or liberties can be taken away just as easily. Therefore, minority groups legal defense subdivisions have an interest in making sure Prop 8 is invalidated, which is why the NAACP, MALDEF, and ALLDEF have filed suit. And, the CCC has also filed suit saying people could use the referendum process to violate the rights of religious minorities. As the child of two life time members of the NAACP, I am very interested in making sure that ethnic minorities cannot be threatened by the referendum process in the future. I’m also concerned that certain key court decisions protecting JW, or Mennonites and Quakers might be overturned in the future if Prop 8 is allowed to stand. Since my dad is a Mennonite and all. 

So please, spare me the diatribes if you are not going to bother to look into the facts.

Constitutional Amendments

Do you know when the last Constitutional Amendment was ratified?

The 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992.  It dealt with the issue of congressional compensation.  The 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 and it established 18 as the voting age.

Hasn’t American Society changed in 16 years?  How out-dated is our government?  See our Page on the US Constitution on your right.

What is a Constitutional Democracy?

The United States of America is a constitutional democracy.

What does that mean? Basically, the government is designed to uphold the will of majority, but, at the same time, protect minorities. These constitutional protections of the powerless are an extremely important point in maintaining a balanced and fair nation.

What will follow is the exact wording of the amendments, then the explanation of the amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment: Citizenship Rights: Ratified July 9, 1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This amendment was created following the Civil War, with the anticipation that the recently freed slaves would meet intense racial discrimination, particularly in Southern states. Note: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Fifteenth Amendment: Race No Bar To Vote: Ratified February 3, 1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment ensures recently freed slaves (as this was immediately following the Civil War) the right to vote and be treated equally in the process.
Nineteenth Amendment: Women’s Suffrage: Ratified August 18, 1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment gave women the right to vote, thus eliminating inequality due to gender.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment: Poll Tax Barred: Ratified January 23, 1964

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment was designed to treat African Americans as equals by eliminating the poll tax, which could be a financial barrier to minorities.

Now, America, where are the protections of the last minority, the GLBT community?