ose 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