Wednesday, July 18, 2018

California Supreme Court Unconstitutionally Blocks Three-State Solution

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Article IV., Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that if new States are to be formed from the carcasses of old States, the move cannot take place without the consent of the State legislatures of any States involved, and the United States Congress.  It is a legislative issue.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents the people from voting on such a measure, but regardless of how the vote turns out, it is nothing more than a message, because in the end it requires legislative action by the legislatures involved.

There is no authority allowing the courts to get in the way.  Frankly, it's none of their high-fallootin' business.

Nonetheless, judges in this country believe they are somehow above everyone, and they can strike down whatever they want, for whatever reason.  In California, the State Supreme Court pulled the three State solution measure (Proposition 9) off of the 2018 ballot because they say the proposal to divide California into three new States is none of the business of the voters.

Funny thing.  In Article I, Section 4 the Constitution places the manner and procedures of elections in the hands of the legislatures, too.  Once again, it's none of the judiciary's business.  If the measure could have been stopped by anyone, that anyone is the California State legislature.

The three-state initiative, Proposition 9, gathered enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Nine days after opponents filed suit, the court issued a unanimous order removing the measure from the ballot and ordering further legal arguments on whether it should be placed on another ballot in 2020 or struck down altogether.

Who made the judges God?

And don't give me the John Marshall crap, or judicial review crap, or Marbury v. Madison crap. All of those arguments are nothing more than the courts seizing that power for themselves, and not being granted those powers by the States (whose delegates are the ones who wrote the Constitution, and whom granted all of the powers the federal government has).

The court, likely wishing they had royal scepters to pound into the ground as they belched their dictatorial decree, claimed “significant questions regarding the proposition’s validity” and the “potential harm” of allowing a public vote before those questions are resolved “outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

Who are they to tell the voters that after they jumped through all of the hoops they somehow can't have their vote the way they want it?

Not that I like the three-State solution.  In fact, I actually think the New California idea, which is having a convention in Coalinga this weekend (and I was invited to participate, but I have other things to juggle), is a better idea for the mess we call California, but should be renamed either Detroit or Venezuela.

While the judges are right that California voters do not have the power to break up the State without legislative approval from both Sacramento and Washington D.C., the voters can vote on it to send the message to the legislatures that they want them to do it.

The judges are saying that legislative approval, at least by California, must happen before the people get to vote on it.  Basically, the three State solution requires a “revision” of the State Constitution, something in California that is not supposed to happen until approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature in Sacramento.  Then, after that approval, it can be placed on the ballot.

The guy behind Proposition 9 is a billionaire Bay Area venture capitalist named Tim Draper.  He drafted Prop. 9, qualified it for the ballot and has represented himself without a lawyer in the court proceedings. Draper argues that California has become ungovernable — its taxes too high, its schools and public services in disrepair, its 39 million-plus residents far too numerous to be represented democratically by 120 elected legislators.

Well, there's a mistake right there.  We are not supposed to be a democracy.  Not the State government.  Not the federal government.  We are supposed to be a republic, with some democratic processes.  In Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, in fact, it tells the United States Government that it is required to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

You want to fix California?  It should start by getting us back to a being Republic, which includes killing the current State Senator set-up, and changing it back to what it used to be before progressives and the Warren Court screwed it all up.  One Senator per county, and the county leadership appointing the State Senators.  The screwy way they have it now has rural counties sharing a State Senator, and Los Angeles County with 13 of them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: