Re: Know new taxes!
 

Well, Carl Eller is pretty familiar with courtrooms.

Ghost of Christmas future
 

So Obama, W, and the 3 other living ex-Prez had lunch today.

All of the living presidents were last at the White House in 1981: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and the incumbent Ronald Reagan. On that day, all the presidents stood in a circle inside the White House, discussing news of the world. The dominant topic? Then, as now, it was the Middle East.

I can picture another 28 years from now, Obama, W, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Chelsea Clinton getting together with incoming prez elect George P Bush, and, then, as now, the discussion will be a peace solution for the middle east.........

Ty@50, any incite?

Re: Know new taxes!
 

Dude. Some of those charges were just dismissed.

Re: Ghost of Christmas future
 

Wow. Obama really is black.

Re: Ghost of Christmas future
 

You forgot President Franken.

Actual Fashion Question
 

• Prop. 8 proponents say Brown 'profoundly wrong'
  -- State Attorney General Jerry Brown was "profoundly wrong" and "invented an entirely new theory" when he urged the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8's same-sex marriage ban on the basis that voters can't be allowed to overturn fundamental liberties, attorneys for the measure said Monday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNNK1541BC.DTL

When it comes to con law I'm as dull-witted as adder and GGG's lovechild, but isn't there something to this?

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

I, for one, agree with you. Good friends of mine have asserted with totally straight faces that a majority can't amend the Constitution once a court has found that the minority has suffered an Equal Protection violation because declaring protected classes is "the traditional prerogative of the judiciary." So now we're in Bizarro World where judges are philosopher kings who tell us, based not on constitutional text but principles of Natural Law, when a constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional.

I prefer the argument that Prop 8 was an illegal constitutional revision and required legislative approval or a constitutional convention. But that's just because I'm opposed to Prop 8 and all ballot initiatives, not because I think it's a winning argument.

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

when someone admits they're ignorant about something you should use small words.

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

The latter's a much better (and less troubling) argument than the former. The only impediment seems to be your state's Constitution, which removes the latter from consideration.

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

atticus could be summed up as a "take no prisoners pussy."

Think

about

it.

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

While I am against Prop 8, once you make that elevation I think you effectuate the use the 2nd amendment to check the power of the philospher kings, which, in this instance might be interesting if Arnold came to the defense of those kings.

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

Did you mean "take no prisoners' pussy"? (and I am assuming gender segregated prisons, and thus, pussy=manpussy, as the slang goes, or so Oz educated me)

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

Knowing nothing at all about the California constitution, what you say makes sense to me. Certainly the majority can overrule the judiciary, and there is a fare amount of precedent to support that.

That said, it is unlikely to fly, but if they are looking for law that could supersede the will of the California electorate, they might want to look international law principles (although I can't think of any that would apply).

Re: Actual Fashion Question
 

thank god, those are a definite 2nd amendment trigger, npi.

For Penkse
 

You can see each challenged ballot and the canvassing board's conclusion here. Draw your own conclusions.