Saturday, January 16, 2021
Supreme Court and Constitution
The
A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right
Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve
This
essay studies the Case of California's Proposition 8 from its adoption by the
voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26,
2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side
of the case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme
Court, Article III of teh US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of
law, equal protection of the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that
should be universal in all legal and judiciary systems in the world. The case
then provides the world with a full demonstration of these judicial human
rights that in fact should define the concept of Habeas Corpus.
This
case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court refused
to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded
the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's ruling on the case because the
people speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary
standing. That ruling indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District
Court that had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Though it does not
create a legal void in California, this ruling encourages the ProtectMarriage
organization to start a new round of legal proceedings in the California
Supreme Court.
This long essay would not have been possible
if the first and shorter version had not been encouraged by one of its first
readers as follows:
“I think
your argumentation and logic is good. You shouldn’t be entering the rest of the
discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or send back to what was said
in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are following the logic of the
legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14, the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be sure, but you can project yourself
in the future, and you are already doing it, by saying that the Supreme Court,
despite taking a lot of time (which can also be to get the “temperature,” the
mood of the country within the next few months), is very unlikely to commit
itself with such an important issue. And your logic shows just that . . .
So, in short, your approach is the most
valuable as the case starts in California (and its norms) and shifts to the
federal level (multiple norms): they all thrive under the US Constitution and
Amendment
Paris, January 11, 2013
Amazon Kindle
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Language: English
ASIN: B00E24JTC0
US$ 4.00 EUR 3.23