SCOTUS looks at proposition 8 today

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not sure about the standing issue. If there's no standing here, can a state prevent the challenging of an unconstitutional measure by simply failing to respond to it? If that's true, that's a really scary concept. Could a state pass a law banning the use of birth control and defend it by simply not defending it because you can't obtain default judgment against the state?

I've had trouble all along with the California AG's decision not to defend Prop 8. Regardless of what he personally feels about, unless it clearly is unconstitutional, the people of a state have a right to expect that the elected official whose job it is to defend state laws will in fact defend state laws. Otherwise, one or two elected officials essentially have veto power over the electorate.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've had trouble all along with the California AG's decision not to defend Prop 8. Regardless of what he personally feels about, unless it clearly is unconstitutional, the people of a state have a right to expect that the elected official whose job it is to defend state laws will in fact defend state laws. Otherwise, one or two elected officials essentially have veto power over the electorate.

But there is danger in just one person thinking it is unconstitutional. I actually see parallels to President Obama refusing to allow his administration to defend DOMA. I think that the legislature has a responsibility to insure a bill doesn't violate the constitution before it is passed, but if they fail to do so, it is still the executive's duty to defend that bill in court until told other wise.