UCLA Students Take Over Building in Protest of Fee Increase Vote
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Midnight Movie: VICE Explores LA's Hidden Urban Oil Wells
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa talks during a news conference at a downtown fire station last week addressing California's massive deficit (AP Photo/Richard Vogel)
Speaking from Sacramento today as he works with legislators on our failed state budget (they want to take money away from cities), gay marriage supporter and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villariagosa addressed today's Prop 8 ruling in a statement.
"When a bare majority can strip away a fundamental right - yet it takes a two-thirds vote to pass a budget - then our system is fundamentally broken," said poignantly said. "While there is much to criticize in today’s court decision and there will be plenty of debates about our path forward, one thing is clear: This debate will rest in the hands of the people." His full statement can be read below.
"I traveled to Sacramento today to work with our state legislators to help address a budget crisis caused by a broken system in California - one that puts the process of balancing our books in the hands of a few swing votes in the legislature and requires us to cross a nearly insurmountable threshold just to keep our state’s finances afloat."At the same time, the state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, stating that the future of thousands of Californians - the extent of our state's commitment to equal opportunity for all citizens to solidify bonds of love and build healthy, caring families - can be determined by the will of a bare majority of voters.
"These two situations reflect a chilling truth we must face as a community and as a state: That when a bare majority can strip away a fundamental right - yet it takes a two-thirds vote to pass a budget - then our system is fundamentally broken.
"While there is much to criticize in today’s court decision and there will be plenty of debates about our path forward, one thing is clear: This debate will rest in the hands of the people. And that might just be the best place for it because the fight for equality is not about morality or religion, our schools or our places of work. It's about real people and real human beings. It's about men and women trying to lead successful lives with those they love. It's about parents hoping to raise a family and ready to accept the responsibilities that come along with a lifelong commitment to your spouse and your children.
"In the coming years - as we make our case to voters and as the majority of our neighbors come to understand the real, painful, human impact of Prop 8 across California - I am confident that this state will have a change of heart, will reiterate its broader commitment to justice for every citizen, and will overturn this unjust ban at the ballot box."
Earlier: Schwarzenegger reacts
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Well, it looks like the mayor read the same Economist article I did, on the idiocy between a 2/3rds legislature and direct-democracy propositions.
"While there is much to criticize in today’s court decision..."
While I am anti-Prop 8 and want to see it overturned, I'm having a hard time criticizing the California Supreme Court for basically upholding what is for better or worse the will of the people.
Let it be repealed the same way it was enacted, via the initiative process. Not by seven people in robes.
Would you support the will of the people to legalize slavery? To ban a specific religion? To mandate sterilization of the disabled?
The will of the people is irrelevant when it comes to human rights.
@rdm24: The case brought before the California Supreme Court wasn't about Prop 8's constitutionality. it was about the initiative itself being procedurally legal, which it was. The justices really had no choice but to uphold it.
That doesn't answer my question.
The court has essentially ruled that a ballot proposition could do any of the things I suggested, because the will of the voters trumps personal (and no longer inalienable) rights. So a proposition that would, say, mandate lower pay for women, would be upheld by this court.
Your question is a fallacy.
@rdm24: Your question is making a hypothetical assumption of various worst-case scenarios. The day will never come when voters approve a measure that "legalizes slavery" and "sterlizes the disabled."
But I'll play along. Let's say that day comes and such heinous initiatives promoting such issues are all brought to ballots legally and correctly and then subsequently approved by the majority of voters, if suits against them are brought to the courts that challenge their legality as initiatives while ignoring how they fail constitutionally, just like with today's decision the judges would have little recourse other than to let them stand.
The will of the people is not irrelevant. Ever. It is the will of the people that will ultimately allow us to see 8 repealed.
The real problem is that there are no limits on the ballot initiative procedure (for example - civil rights or the bill of rights can be fundamentally changed) and that the constitution can be amended by a simple majority of a voters. This is just scary. The court could have made something up like, "inalienable rights cannot be taken away by the constitution" but they may or may not have been talking out of their asses.
As Mayor V points out, the problem is that our constitution is designed so that a teensy, tiny number of people can ruin things for everyone else without impediment.
More of our politicos need to vocalize the dysfunctional system that is the California government and the process by which we handle budgets and propositions in this state. It's obvious to the rest of the nation that the way we do business in California is illogical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html
The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.
The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.
Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.
I couldn't agree more. Those voters who passed Prop 13 and who support it today have robbed (or raped, if you prefer stronger language) the citizens of California of the services and quality of life we deserve for 30 years now and we need to overturn it and put a tourniquet on that wound, pick up the pieces and return to a functional system of government.
How can a state that feeds the whole nation, drives dozens of major industries and has the world's 7th largest economy all by itself not be a swimming in services and tax revenue?
I find it distressing that some of you think the problem is California can't raise taxes *quickly* enough. Our sales tax is over 9% in most counties now. Our overall taxes are among the highest in the nation. You want more?? Neither The Economist nor Krugman lives in California - I wouldn't put any credence in their words. All along, I thought the problem was California overspends, borrows to much, and can't live within its means. Now I realize the real issue is we aren't taxed enough..
Here is an interesting take from the LA Times:
Voter problem
Our sales tax is over 9% in most counties now. Our overall taxes are among the highest in the nation.
And our property taxes are some of the LOWEST in the nation, comparatively.
When Prop 187 was deviously eradicated before being filed with the higher courts, has obviously attributed to the budget crash in California. You cannot blame the majority of this mess on Arnold, because millions of illegal aliens and families have been given full access to governmental benefits by the Liberal morons in Sacramento for years.
Can anybody tell me why we are forced by Federal mandate to pay for all the needs of illegal aliens? Can anybody inform the people, why businesses pay absolutely-- NOTHING--for their upkeep? Can anybody say why Americans will put up with this travesty, because if we start deporting, by whatever means? That prisons will start to empty, our schools will return to places of education and performance without serious overcrowding? That our schools would no longer have to grovel for school materials, instead of teachers, have the kids sell food items to parents? Can any taxpayer tell me why we must allow foreign children receive lower tuition fees than our own children.
That the federal and state treasuries will begin a slow upsurge towards solvency? That we can once again afford health care for our impoverished citizens, including food stamps and low income housing--instead of being intentionally ignored by Washington? Can anybody tell me why our legislators are in collusion with anti-sovereignty, pro-illegal labor, free traders, who have devastated the less skilled American workers? Can anybody tell me why the majority party wants to pass another AMNESTY? That will give even more illegal aliens access to our wilting Social Security and pensions? Can anybody tell me why with a new path to citizenship, millions of family members will be admitted under the family unification, which you will also need to be supported? Is there any logic reason to pass the AGJOB bill for foreign farm workers, when their is a law in place already? Can anybody impress on me why illegal labor, who taxpayers subsides, yet our government allows them to send billions of dollars overseas?
Can anybody rationalize to me, why the Supreme Court says having a bogus social security number is not a felony? Can anybody tell me why we admit 2.5 million legal immigrants annually, but our lawmakers give lip service to enforcing an undermanned, partially built border fence, or enforce the border permanently with Nation Guard troops? Can anybody offer an explanation why E-Verify, 247(g) or the Real ID act has been weakened, by Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi and a host of other confederates to weaken our immigration laws? Can anybody tell me why they want to count millions of illegal aliens in the census, thus giving more fraudulent seats in Congress to Sanctuary States like California and more funding. Can anybody express to me why many larger newspapers and media don't expose the truth about the out-of-control crime by illegal nationals The ugly facts at NUMBERSUSA.
Can anybody tell me why we are forced by Federal mandate to pay for all the needs of illegal aliens?
Because it would be immoral to let human beings die in our gutters?
Why are illegal nationals allowed to be on our streets in the first place. Maybe we should declare war on the countries that are sending their spies and criminals to our shores!