Amending constitutions is a sacred procedure in order to guard against popular propaganda and an emotionally charged society.
Under Article five of the US Constitution two thirds of the Congress are required to support an amendment to the constitution. Thereafter three fourths of the states are required to ratify the amendment.
Under Article six, all laws [including the Constitution] made by the United States are the supreme law of the land…..Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Amending the constitution of any state should of necessity be pattrned after the US Constitution by the requirement that two thirds of the state legislature vote to amend followed by referral to the people of that state with three fourths ratification.
Anything less than that would constitute mob rule as warned by Thomas Jefferson.
Under this theory, Proposition 8 in California is invalid. The California Supreme Court should bring the State Constitution into alignment with the US Constitution to protect minorities.
Where the initiative is incorporated into the state constitution, a reversal of the procedure could be recognized. However the percentages recognized would of necessity be of the complete number of registered voters within the state not merely those who voted.
This then should be ratified by two thirds of the legislature.
Any Arguments?
Doug Wallace, JD
