Amending and Revising the Constitution - Essay Example

The Issues behind the Challenge to Proposition 8 The Issues behind the Challenge to Proposition 8 The assesses the noble task of the California Supreme Court to make a decision on the implications of proposition 8, an initiative that would see modification of the state’s constitution and pose possible infringement of a particular group’s rights that the Supreme Court considers as fundamental. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure that is against the court’s decision to uphold rights to same-sex marriage by having it redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The court has to deliberate decisions as challenges to overturn those behind proposition 8 pose the decision, and upholding the proposition would open a door to question the validity of marriages performed before its passage. The author looks back at the original draft of California Constitution of 1849 and examines the provisions offered concerning modifying the constitution. The draft would provide two methods to oversee the modification. A change would be done through an amendment that would have to be proposed by a majority from both sides of the legislature, and the amendment would have to be adopted by the voters. The second method suggested a modification based on a revision that would have to be adopted in a constitutional convention. The same arrangement would hold with slight modifications in 1879 where a legislative proposal would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses rather than a simple majority. The approaches featured shed some light on the factors that would have to matter in the wake of a need to modify the constitution in the face of possible implications on the rights of others. Lack of early similar cases that would otherwise offer insight on the best direction to follow is underscored.However, Supreme Court’s decision in 1894 insisted that the legislature reserved no power to propose revisions, an element that is distinguished from amendments. This would hold until 1911 when the Progressives had an initiative in place that would see the electors have the power to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution with the ability to adopt or reject them. This would allow California to bypass the demands posed by the legislative proposal and would use initiatives directly to pose amendments to the constitution. Another turn in 1970 would give power to the legislature to propose amendments and revisions by two-thirds in both houses. This means an amendment can be done by having a measure placed upon a ballot, an action that can be facilitated through a legislative proposal or a petition. On the other hand, a revision would demand legislative action or a constitutional convention. The author points out the failure of the Constitution to define the terms ‘amendment’ and ‘revision’, an element that frustrates lawmakers in decision-making. Though he quotes the court’s attempt to offer an insight in 1949 ‘revision’ as initiative measure. It would substantially alter more than 15 articles of the constitution back then, but such a measure could not be adopted through the initiative process. The court finds the recorded changes in the constitution as relevant in the execution of the current case. The author revisits a recent case of 1990 that would inspire decisions by the Supreme Court with the current proposition. Raven v. Deukmejian would have required California to regard a revision in the same provision as defined by the court in 1949. Some have found the case to have attacked state’s court power and authority to pass judgment. The judgment was influenced by a wide range of affairs that have serious implications for the rights of some individuals and which are defined as fundamental by the constitution. The Supreme Court would have to observe proposition 8 with strict scrutiny to ensure protection of suspect classes who might turn out to victims of discrimination. The author feels the need for the judicial function to realize its noble position of safeguarding the rights of the minority. The author examines the role of the attorney general in measuring the implications of Proposition 8. He defends legislation against constitutional attack from one angle and sees proposition eight as more of an amendment before assuming his role of defending the entire constitution. He observes proposition eight as invalid especially when seen as having potential to take away some rights of others that the constitution deems as ‘inalienable’. The author finds attorney general remarks interesting having had bans on same-sex marriage have some implications on the rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Defending the constitution would mean having to hold the values this draft considers as inalienable with the people. Previous bans on same-sex marriages have been portrayed in the article as having had infringed the rights that the constitution defines as inseparable with the people. Such people can defend their life and liberty and seek what would entail privacy, safety, and happiness. With the language of the constitution being an element that cannot be separable with its content, the idea of unalienable is underscored by both the chief justice and the attorney general. They feel that an effort by one group to implicate on the rights of another as more of an amendment but not a revision. The author feels the need for people to be concerned about how the provisions of the constitution should change. The author has shed some light on the nature of the constitution, and the readers would have a different perspective of the document seeing the much that has transpired since it was drafted. This document defines the rights of the people yet defends itself from the people. With an attorney general having to defend the wholesomeness of the draft, we realize that the content defines the nature in which this content can be altered. The author shows the reader the thick line between an amendment and revision, and the position of Proposition 8 in this context. The language used is paramount and explains the depth and gravity of the content represented by the document, and every word has a different meaning relative to another. The author does not spare much time to share some more meaningful insight on what Proposition 8 entails in details. Having hinted that the initiative measure aims to overturn the Supreme Court decision on the meaning of marriage might give a clue. But the readers would have to seek more details elsewhere especially with a matter that involves a group of minorities that have been discriminated for long. Nevertheless, we still see how the society is in quest for equality and how that should be safeguarded by the Constitution. We realize that the Supreme Court defined marriage in not a discriminatory manner as it had a place for the homosexuals and heterosexuals. Leaving the gay out in the definition of marriage would not be fair enough especially at a time when science has proved that some individuals were born as homosexuals. The role of Proposition 8 in the contemporary society is to illuminate how much even our judicial systems would be forced to spread a homophobic culture even in the wake of civilization. Having to opt to consider man and woman in the definition of marriage alienate some members of our kind and subjects them to psychological and emotional torture. The author should have shed some light on how some teenagers and adults have suffered in the hands of the society while being insulted and denied equal rights with others just because they are gay. Even health facilities have always discriminated in terms of treatment while they have not been allowed to donate some of their tissues and organs to others. The author did well to urge the reader to see the need of having the best approach to use in changing the provisions offered by the constitution. Proposition 8 poses a measure that would change the lives of many not just in California but the entire nation. The fact that it intends to overturn the meaning of marriage would mean a great deal to what the constitution defends. The argument is valid but would then have severe implications on the rights of others. The homosexuals have been defended by the constitution like all others and can seek happiness, privacy and safety. Overturning the meaning of marriage would leave them vulnerable and would take their rights away. The proposition would never hold water as the definition of marriage itself doesn’t affect or modify rights of an individual considered as fundamental by the constitution. The measure would only call for a revision that doesn’t meet the best interest of the entire population. Maybe we should consider why much time and resources should be spared in deliberating an effort that violates what the constitution defends. The document would never leave a room for a measure that would deny a group a value considered as inalienable to them. The proposition poses an attack to the constitution in a manner that would leave room for similar propositions. Marriage should not be restricted to some sexual orientations but instead spare space for all, and while changes to the provisions of the constitution remain inventible, modifications should not have implications on rights considered fundamental to others. Read More