SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

Vote no on Prop. 3 marriage anarchy on the California ballot

Tuesday, July 9, 2024, 10:37 am | Randy Thomasson

It’s a fact that federal courts — in California and nationwide — have legalized same-sex marriage.

Another fact is, that if someday in the future, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states can decide on same-sex marriages, California’s 2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger U.S. district court decision would contribute to still considering same-sex marriages valid and recognized in California.

Likewise, other rulings from the California Supreme Court — In re Marriage Cases in 2008 decided that the Prop. 22 statutory initiative passed by the voters in 2000 (which banned same-sex marriage) violated the California State Constitution, and 2009’s Strauss v. Horton ruling declaring same-sex marriages already licensed have perpetual, legal validity — mean same-sex marriage isn’t going away in California.

So why is Proposition 3 on California’s November 2024 ballot? Legislators who voted last year (78 Democrats and 10 Republicans) to place it on the ballot claim it’s only about same-sex marriage. But is that how it reads or, more importantly, what it would do?

Prop. 3’s eight very subjective and broadly-applicable words to be inserted into the State Constitution are “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” Now, do you see a limit on number of spouses, an age prerequisite, or a requirement that a spouse be human? And do you see any prohibition of incestuous marriages or multiple simultaneous marriages? They’re not there.

Why wasn’t Prop. 3 written to say marriages of “any two adults” is valid or recognized in California? Because they know same-sex marriage is secure in California, but wanted to deceptively create marriage anarchy, including polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages — even marriages with animals and objects. Because leftists didn’t want limits!

If Prop. 3 passes, the California Constitution would declare “a fundamental right…to marry,” with no definitions, standards, or limits. And whatever’s part of the state constitution that conflicts with California statutes (such as the Family Code or Penal Code) supersedes these regular laws.

Stop and realize all it takes is a lawsuit in state court claiming a constitutional right to “marry” whomever or whatever. If and when those lawsuits using Prop. 3 begin, very quickly, all the marital definitions, standards, and limits you’re used to would be eliminated — all because Prop. 3 renders them unconstitutional.

Once you understand the power of a state constitutional amendment and the Prop. 3’s deceptive language, what’s the real agenda of this purposefully deceptive legislative ballot measure?

Prop. 3’s eight subjective words would permit:

• Polygamy, where a few or several people all marry each other.
• Bigamy, where a person has two or more spouses simultaneously.
• “Child marriages” — where an adult and a child marry — when the courts rule PROP 3 eliminates the age of consent in the California Family Code.
• Incestuous marriages (between parents and children, between grandparents and children or grandchildren, between siblings, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or nephews).
• Marriages with animals or objects, because PROP 3 doesn’t require a spouse to be human.

What’s more, multiple spouses and spousal exemptions will greatly undermine the concept of fairness, a child’s best interest, and law and order:

• Who’s responsible for paying child support could be very confusing.
• Who’s covered by insurance and who are insurance beneficiaries could be very messy.
• With many “spouses,” who would make decisions for a comatose or otherwise incapacitated person?
• Financial manipulation could occur, as wealthy, elderly persons “marry” their children in order to avoid payment of inheritance taxes.
• Gang members — in and out of jail or prison — could all “marry” each other in order to avoid having to testify against their “spouses.”

These are just some of the problems Prop. 3 would usher in. If you dislike the thought of child brides, incest, polygamy, and animal abuse…if you oppose deceptive legislators…if you reject chaos-causing proposals…you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy. And please tell everyone you know why they should vote NO.

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) or have been implied through interpretation of clauses, such as under Due Process. These laws are said to be “fundamental” because they were found to be so important for individual liberty that they should be beyond the reach of the political process, and therefore, they are enshrined in the Constitution. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
“Fundamental Right,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

The immoral tyranny of Democrats & RINOs

Friday, June 21, 2024, 9:10 am | Randy Thomasson

The California Supreme Court has unconstitutionally called something they don’t like a “revision,” removing it from the ballot, and preventing California voters from even voting for protection against more money grabs. More

In the face of this tyrannical attack and significant loss, don’t collapse in cynicism. Instead, fight back by sharing this post. Tell others, “If you vote for Democrat Party politicians, you’re voting for tyranny and higher taxes.”

The “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

How would you rule on keeping or removing ballot measures already qualified by hundreds of thousands of signatures of registered voters?

See these facts:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II (regarding ballot initiatives)

Section 1: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Section 8(a): The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

Section 8(d): An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

Did you catch that? This is freedom for the People to qualify one-subject initiatives!

So where did a prohibition of a “revision” of the California Constitution come from?From the California Supreme Court itself, beginning in 1978. Yet now, the state high court has abandoned its respect for legal definitions and is grabbing more power.

Specifically, this Democrat-Party-dominated, 7-judge court is broadly defining “revision” to be any tough, single-subject reform, such as no money-grabs (tax increases, tax extensions, fee increases, etc.) without a majority vote of the People.

But Newsom’s activist judges are wrong. A “revision” makes changes throughout a written constitution, covering multiple subjects — which is vastly different from a single-subject initiative such as tax relief:

From the introduction of “The Revision of California’s Constitution” by Eugene C. Lee in 1991 (Lee was “a leading scholar of California state and local government and former Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley”):

By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California supreme court distinguished between a “revision” of the constitution and a mere” amendment” thereof (Livermore v. Waite 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a “revision” referred to a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions” (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization 22 Cal. 3d 208).

Even a grammar expert with no political reputation knows the broad difference between a revision and an amendment:

“A revision…is a more significant alteration to a document that involves a complete review and reworking of its content. It is a process of making extensive changes to a document, often with the goal of improving its overall quality or effectiveness.”

Under these definitions, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act was not a “revision,” but a bona fide amendment that should have been allowed on the ballot in respect for our Constitution and for jealously guarding voter rights.

For the current state constitution has hundreds of sections within 35 articles. Yet The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would have only amended the California Constitution in 6 sections of 4 articles (Article XIII): Section 3 of Article XIII A, Section 1 of Article XIII C, Section 2 of Article XIII C, Section 3 of Article XIII D, Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII.

So it wasn’t a “revision” that was a “substantially alteration of the entire constitution,” but an amendment to the state constitution that only changed “one or more of its provisions.” What’s more, the Act satisfied the long-standing state high court standard of having a single-subject — taxes.

Bottom line, the California Supreme Court, comprised of 6 Democrats and 1 RINO, is unconstitutional for placing itself above the written State Constitution and yanking this constitutionally-valid taxpayer protection initiative from the ballot. They are anti-People tyrants!

The 7-member California Supreme Court has 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Gavin Newsom and 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Jerry Brown. Two of Newsom’s three picks were confirmed by current, corrupt, unconstitutional Attorney General Rob Bonta and two other members of the “Commission on Judicial Appointments,” so those are Bonta’s “picks” too. The sole “Republican” on the state high court is 75-year-old Carol Corrigan, a former Democrat, a self-proclaimed “moderate,” and a likely homosexual.

From the Los Angeles Times 2005Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Court of Appeal Justice Carol A. Corrigan, a moderate Republican, to the California Supreme Court on Friday in a move that is likely to shift the conservative-leaning court toward the center. In an interview before her appointment, Corrigan repeatedly described herself as a moderate and a centrist. She switched her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1995 after then-Gov. Pete Wilson appointed her to the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. “I think I would probably be a centrist anyplace I found myself,” she said. “I was a moderate Democrat, and now I am a moderate Republican…. I am moderate on virtually all things.”

Can this be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? A federal lawsuit can be tried, but it is unlikely to succeed. But what each of us can do is tell others that voting for Democrrats = tyranny and higher taxes. Because everything about this is state jurisdiction. The only exceptions might be Article IV, Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”) or the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of…property, without due process of law“). But winning at the U.S. Supreme Court is a bad bet, due to cowardly Republicans on the bench and too much “state jurisdiction” precedent to the contrary.

* * *

So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the honours of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.
Greek historian Polybius (203 BC – 120 BC) in The Histories

Do the math in California’s U.S. Senate contest

Saturday, February 17, 2024, 8:17 am | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

For the love of God and people created in His image, SaveCalifornia.com is reminding voters to do the hard math in California’s U.S. Senate contest. Because, in California’s “jungle primary,” only two candidates will advance to the general election. And every indication is that will be either be a Democrat and a Republican, or two Democrats.

If you don’t want the latter scenario, then the real question for California conservatives is: Is Republican Steve Garvey acceptable? That’s the question we unpack for you at our SaveCalifornia.com Pro-Family Election Center. Please visit and urge your friends to visit!

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it — lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Luke 14:28-32