Gay marriage ruling is tyranny over California Constitution

July 3, 2013 

This is far greater than the debate on the definition of marriage. How does it work? The people of California enact a constitutional amendment using the California ballot proposition process. It is challenged in court. The state elected officials that are responsible to, and have signed an oath to, defend the constitution refuse to do so. The people are forced to defend the case. But, the U.S. Supreme Court says the people lack standing to defend the Constitution.

I think this is how you spell "tyranny."

How many times are the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights? But the Supreme Court says the people have no standing. The court talks about denying rights, yet they say the people have no standing (rights)? Any new, or former, ballot proposition is now at the whim of the elected officials; they can now just choose not to defend it with impunity. Proposition 13, anyone? The governor and attorney general should be recalled for not protecting our California Constitution — if the people have standing.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" — Thomas Jefferson



Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service