It’s in-your-face tyranny from judicial activists on the California Supreme Court. They’ve again abused their limited power by REMOVING the “3 Californias” initiative (Proposition 9) from the November 6 ballot. This is despite the California State Constitution’s foundational declaration that:
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.
There is NOTHING in California state law permitting the California Supreme Court to remove an initiative for any reason. And there is no law in the California Constitution or California statutes that gives any court carte blanche to strike propositions it doesn’t like from the ballot.
Consider that:
- “3 Californias” has not failed to meet the procedural requirements to qualify for the ballot
- “3 Californias” does not conflict with the federal or state constitution, or a federal statute
- “3 Californias” does not violate any constitutional provision or statute, such as the rule requiring initiatives to encompass a single subject
Here’s the California Supreme Court’s lame, make-it-up-as-you-go explanation, posted on their site:
Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot.
Therefore, it was unconstitutional for the California Supreme Court to suggest that the People’s initiative to revise (or nullify) the California Constitution (Prop. 9 on the November 2018 ballot, known as “3 Californias”) somehow lacked “validity” — especially in light of the California State Constitution’s Article 2 (REAFFIRMED IN 1976), which declares “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.”
What’s more, former Supreme Court Judge Marvin Baxter (one of the last constitutional ones), wrote in 1993: “Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, ‘the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.’ (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian [(1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336,] 341 [276 [6 Cal. 4th 721] Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].)
“Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/6/707.html)
So why did the California Supreme Court go against the People? Was it to satisfy the environmental activists who had sued to protect their statewide laws burdening businesses and jobs from being “non-applicable” in three “Californias”? This ruling by the state high court’s 6 current judges is a severe miscarriage of justice.
ACTION: Please expose this tyrannical act against the People on news sites and your social networking.
RSS 2.0 Feed