On ABC’s “This Week”, John McCain was asked if he would support Sarah Palin if she ran for President in 2012.  He replied “I can’t say something like that. We’ve got some great other young governors. I think you’re going to see the governors assume a greater leadership role in our Republican Party.”  He knew she was just there to energize the base as a political ploy.  She wouldn’t have been suited for the job in a McCain administration, and the thought of her own makes me shiver.  Though, I’m more than open to the idea of her with the republican nomination; it just means another very interesting, very laughable campaign, and another democrat in office.

Damn, John, what a maverick!  Sounds like the status quo  in politics to me.

Full Article

President Bush made his farewell visit to Iraq today, attempting to convey improved conditions by landing in broad daylight, and passing the fortified Green Zone.  During a conference with Prime Minister Maliki, shoes were thrown at him from an Iraqi journalist yelling, “This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog”.  Unfortunately, I don’t think he meant “dog” as the friendly euphemism.  Throwing shoes is an insult in middle eastern cultures.  The full article is here.

Maliki attempts to block the speeding shoe.

As we expected, Prop 8, having passed by 4 points, is going back to the courts.  Of course, a person supporting the bill would ask, “Since we voted on a constitutional amendment, shouldn’t that protect it from the courts?”  Yes and no.  Though the constitution is above the courts, a bill can be shot down based on the way in which it was passed, and that’s exactly what the upcoming lawsuits are about.  The arguments are basically as follows:

There are two types of initiatives to the state constitution: amendments and revisions.  Though the constitution doesn’t define their meanings, the courts have articulated the difference in Livermore v. Waite:

“The very term ‘constitution’ implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the other hand, the significance of the term ‘amendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.”

Amendments are minor additions to the text that that don’t conflict with its current content.  Revisions, on the other hand, are more substantial changes that alter the basic principles.  This is relevant to Prop 8, because amendments and revisions are passed in different ways.  Amendments only require a majority vote, while revisions, in addition, require a 2/3 majority in the state legislature.

Prop 8 was passed as an amendment with the a small majority.  However, the lawsuits are on the basis that it would more accurately qualify as a revision, and having not received a 2/3 vote in the senate and assembly, would be rejected.

Now, let’s examine the proposition to find out.

The text reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  At first, it is seemingly compatible with the rest, however, it overrules the existing supreme court ruling as to the content of the constitution in In re Marriage Cases:

“[T]he right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

AND

“[T]he California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.”

The Supreme Court has already ruled same-sex marriage to be a CONSTITUTIONAL right, and banning it to be a violation of the equal protection clause.  Thus, Prop 8, overturning that right would be an alteration of the content, classifying it as a revision.

Hopefully it will be rejected on those grounds.  What’s the point of a constitutional right, if the majority can take it away on a whim?  Justice Scalia, one of the more conservative members of the federal Supreme Court, wrote in “A Theory of Constitutional Interpretation”, “The only reason you need a constitution is because some things you don’t want the majority to be able to change. That’s my most important function as a judge in this system. I have to tell the majority to take a hike. I tell them, ‘I don’t care what you want, but the bill of rights says you cannot do it.’”
The courts have ruled both ways when cases like this have come up, so the issue is still in suspense.  However, we know, that no matter the ruling, some people ain’t gonna like it.  The legal battles will likely go all the way up to see if Scalia stands by those words of his.