[News] When the gov't refuses to prosecute, indivduals can prosecute in behalf of the state...

[strawman]

Setting aside for the moment the same-sex marriage issue, this ruling is significant:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-right-to-veto-voter-approved-initiative.html

Recently we've seen branches of government instruct their attorneys to decline to prosecute or defend various piece of legislation. This is the first time that a court has held that they may not have that right, in some narrow cases.

In this case, the proposition was enacted by the people, and the state cannot both refuse to defend it and bar others from defending it.

So now if the state refuses to uphold laws enacted by the people, supporters of an enacted proposition can go to court in behalf of the people.

Which, overall, is a good thing. The governor and DA should not be given power to ignore what the voters voted for - imagine what would happen if they decided not to uphold the results of a recall vote.

 

[Chibibar]

I am from the camp that people collectively are generally stupid. So what if the people vote on something that is fundamentally wrong? there should be checks and balance on these thing.

 

[strawman]

what if the people vote on something that is fundamentally wrong?

Who gets to decide when the people's will should be obeyed and when it should be ignored?

That's the problem voting is supposed to solve.

 

[Sara_2814]

Who gets to decide when the people's will should be obeyed and when it should be ignored?

The Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. Which has been used to overturn the "people's will" of state laws that, among other things, made inter-racial marriage illegal. Hooray for Constitutional Republics!

I think the problem we really need to be pondering is why, in our 21st century constitutional republic, GLBT people are still being denied rights (such as marriage) which should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Chibibar]

The Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. Which has been used to overturn the "people's will" of state laws that, among other things, made inter-racial marriage illegal. Hooray for Constitutional Republics!

I think the problem we really need to be pondering is why, in our 21st century constitutional republic, GLBT people are still being denied rights (such as marriage) which should be protected by the 14th Amendment.

I don't know why either

 

[strawman]

The Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause.

There are other cases regarding whether prop 8 violates the constitution. This ruling doesn't have any effect on that aspect.

So are you also saying this ruling is bad, and that the governor should have the power to ignore the people's vote?

 

[Chibibar]

There are other cases regarding whether prop 8 violates the constitution. This ruling doesn't have any effect on that aspect.

So are you also saying this ruling is bad, and that the governor should have the power to ignore the people's vote?

Only if it goes against the constitution of the U.S.

but upon reflection, that would be under the judicial branch to handle it.

 

[MindDetective]

There are other cases regarding whether prop 8 violates the constitution. This ruling doesn't have any effect on that aspect.

So are you also saying this ruling is bad, and that the governor should have the power to ignore the people's vote?

Isn't that overstating it a bit? Prop 8 was overturned and the state didn't pursue an appeal. That's not exactly the same as ignoring the people's vote. Should the politicians (that were also voted into office) have to appeal every overturned law or proposition automatically?

 

[Biannoshufu]

Steinman, overstating something for hyperbole?

 

[strawman]

Should the politicians (that were also voted into office) have to appeal every overturned law or proposition automatically?

The article points out that there's a distinct difference between laws enacted by the state and the representatives, and those enacted directly by the people through a vote.

So, no, they wouldn't have to pursue each one. And, as this case points out, they don't have to pursue any of them. But if they choose not to for a law that was enacted by the people directly through voting, then the people can step in where the state is bowing out, and go to court in behalf of the people.

It's an important ruling is all. If you don't think so, that's fine, but it's not a trivial decision the court has made. Previously only the government could pursue cases "in behalf of the people." Now individuals can do so, under very narrow circumstances.

I'm very surprised to see people think their votes should be so lightly treated, but I suppose I shouldn't be - the issue this ruling was made for really colors the conversation for many, it seems.

Let's say the reverse was true:

- Prop 8 gauranteed the rights of LGBT people to marry
- The court overturned it due to constitutional wording regarding marriage
- The governer instructed the DA to cease pursuing the case, thus leaving LGBT people without marriage.

Would you then say that the people should not be able to pursue the case in behalf of the people where the government refuses to do so?

You can dance around the subject if you want to, but it seems to me that this ruling - again, disregarding the LGBT issue - is in line with what we should demand of our government.

 

[MindDetective]

The article points out that there's a distinct difference between laws enacted by the state and the representatives, and those enacted directly by the people through a vote.

So, no, they wouldn't have to pursue each one. And, as this case points out, they don't have to pursue any of them. But if they choose not to for a law that was enacted by the people directly through voting, then the people can step in where the state is bowing out, and go to court in behalf of the people.

It's an important ruling is all. If you don't think so, that's fine, but it's not a trivial decision the court has made. Previously only the government could pursue cases "in behalf of the people." Now individuals can do so, under very narrow circumstances.

I'm very surprised to see people think their votes should be so lightly treated, but I suppose I shouldn't be - the issue this ruling was made for really colors the conversation for many, it seems.

Let's say the reverse was true:

- Prop 8 gauranteed the rights of LGBT people to marry
- The court overturned it due to constitutional wording regarding marriage
- The governer instructed the DA to cease pursuing the case, thus leaving LGBT people without marriage.

Would you then say that the people should not be able to pursue the case in behalf of the people where the government refuses to do so?

You can dance around the subject if you want to, but it seems to me that this ruling - again, disregarding the LGBT issue - is in line with what we should demand of our government.

Oh, I absolutely agree with the ruling. I don't agree with your assessment that government officials are ignoring the people's vote.

 

[strawman]

I don't agree with your assessment that government officials are ignoring the people's vote.

Huh. So you are either saying that

1. There's nothing to ignore - the people's vote isn't valid for some reason

or

2. They didn't ignore it - the government pursued it "far enough" even though it didn't pursue it as far as it could have been.

I disagree with you in either case. I don't think voter fraud took place, and I don't think that there is such a thing as "far enough" for things voted for directly by the people.

I'd actually like it to be another reason, so hopefully you'll be able to explain why this isn't necessarily a binary decision. In either above scenario it leaves the voters at a disadvantage.

 

[MindDetective]

I would say number 2. Government officials are not obligated by any law to pursue it further than they did. After all, they have to consider the financial costs and benefits involved, not just the political implications.

I also think the people are welcome to challenge the court ruling on their own. The state officials should not be required to do so but the people should still be allowed to do so. So I like the ruling, because the people can still appeal the case but government officials re not mandated to do so.

 

[strawman]

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there. The purpose of the government is to enact and enforce the will of the people - which is spelled out in the constitution and other laws and mandates. For some things there may be a balance to be made between available resources and the importance of the law or legislation, but for things voted on directly by the people, I don't think they are living up to their "enact and enforce" mandate without providing a robust defense. I can understand them deciding to defer defense until other cases are resolved, or simply dragging their heels in cases they think will be done away eventually anyway, but say, "We will no longer pursue the law the people voted in" is a step too far from their duty.

It will be interesting to see if the number of cases that the gov't decides not to pursue for financial reasons goes up, with the government shifting the responsibility onto the people that elected them. The ruling is so narrow that it will apply to very, very few situations, but it's an option that governments may choose when possible to cut back on their spending.

At some point, of course, there will be a problem with someone coming along with far more resources than the government or any opposition and win the case merely by having the resources to do so.

Rather than letting the government spend a minimal resources on defending prop 8, the resources the interested parties can come up with might be staggering. Rather than filing friend of the court briefs, they will be filing motions in behalf of the state of california.

Perhaps at that point even the opposition will request the gov't get back in the game. Then we'll see even more interesting court cases as they attempt to prove that the gov't will provide as spirited a defense as the people's defense.

 

[MindDetective]

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there. The purpose of the government is to enact and enforce the will of the people - which is spelled out in the constitution and other laws and mandates. For some things there may be a balance to be made between available resources and the importance of the law or legislation, but for things voted on directly by the people, I don't think they are living up to their "enact and enforce" mandate without providing a robust defense. I can understand them deciding to defer defense until other cases are resolved, or simply dragging their heels in cases they think will be done away eventually anyway, but say, "We will no longer pursue the law the people voted in" is a step too far from their duty.

It will be interesting to see if the number of cases that the gov't decides not to pursue for financial reasons goes up, with the government shifting the responsibility onto the people that elected them. The ruling is so narrow that it will apply to very, very few situations, but it's an option that governments may choose when possible to cut back on their spending.

At some point, of course, there will be a problem with someone coming along with far more resources than the government or any opposition and win the case merely by having the resources to do so.

Rather than letting the government spend a minimal resources on defending prop 8, the resources the interested parties can come up with might be staggering. Rather than filing friend of the court briefs, they will be filing motions in behalf of the state of california.

Perhaps at that point even the opposition will request the gov't get back in the game. Then we'll see even more interesting court cases as they attempt to prove that the gov't will provide as spirited a defense as the people's defense.

There does need to be respect for the judicial system too, though. Why does the executive branch have to constantly challenge the judicial branch? Prop 8 was voted in, it was challenged in court and shot down. That is how things are supposed to work. Maybe the law needs to be refined and so should go back to the voters. The executive branch shouldn't just keep pursuing appeals relentlessly because a law was struck down. The will of the people extends only so far as instituting the law in the first place. After that, the will of the people is reflected in the officials voted to office (as judges in some cases, but also as legislators, etc.)

 

[Zappit]

Sounds like some people will use this as an excuse for some old-fashion ignorant villager mob justice. Justice is blind, but she can carry a pitchfork and torch just as well as anyone.