Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Unconstitutional State Supreme Court kills ‘3 Californias’

Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 4:32 pm | Randy Thomasson

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.

As usual, the big media is singing the same song and reporting it wrong. At issue is Article 18 of the California Constitution, concerning “Amending and Revising the Constitution.” In 1970, this article was changed from ONLY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE having power to place such initiatives on the ballot, to ALSO RECOGNIZING THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO DO SO, inserting the words, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” (See Prop. 16 on the 1970 ballot: https://bit.ly/2JMLmqX).

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.

Voter revolt: 3 big propositions on your November ballot

Friday, July 13, 2018, 7:34 am | Randy Thomasson

I was hoping for 5 big, good propositions on California’s November 2018 ballot, but I’ll take 3.

Sadly, not making the deadline to qualify is a very good initiative to crack down on crime, especially by restricting which convicted criminals are eligible for “early release.” However, the “Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act” has qualified extra early for the November 2020 ballot. So please plan to vote yes in two years.

Also not on the ballot (despite qualifying for it) is a much-needed initiative to protect family finances by greatly strengthening the two-thirds’ vote requirement for taxes to be raised. This fantastic proposition would have also defined new fees as new taxes, stopping this deceptive theft by big-government “pimps and prostitutes.”

So why isn’t this good initiative on this year’s ballot? It was withdrawn before final certification. One of the backers told me their coalition just didn’t want it on this year’s ballot (and I don’t know why). Nonetheless, please join me in hoping that fiscally conservative interests will bring it back in 2020.

So what’s worth voting for on the November 2018 ballot? Here are the 3 big, good propositions that have officially qualified, which California families should like:

PROPOSITION 5: Keep pro-family people in California by allowing homeowners 55 and older to buy a different primary residence anywhere in the state without triggering higher property taxes. You can stop the tax code from both penalizing home sellers and discouraging the number of available houses.

PROPOSITION 6: Get ready to save your family or business money by repealing the unnecessary and corrupt gas tax hike and DMV fee hikes of the Democrats and Jerry Brown. With unreasonably high gas prices, you can roll back the liberal politicians’ 2017 money grab that have made California’s gas prices the highest in the contiguous 48 states.

PROPOSITION 9: Finally, you can firmly tell the Democrat power structure that you are dissatisfied with how they’ve ruined many things in California. You can cast a powerful symbolic vote (non-effective unless Congress approves it — which it highly unlikely) to rebuke the existing “rulers” of California state government. The specific reform demand is for California to be divided into 3 new states that have the power to make their own rules and ignore all the bad laws of the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature from the last several decades. Most people don’t understand this initiative yet, or recognize how everything bad in California can be placed at the feet of the ruling Democrat politicians, who’ve controlled the State Legislature more than 50 years. But if you want to send an unmistakable message that the current California government is unacceptable, please vote yes on Prop. 9 to fire another shot that’ll be “heard around the world.”

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President

Ruling on pro-life centers could also stop AB 2943

Thursday, June 28, 2018, 6:27 pm | Randy Thomasson

If you’re sick and tired of the Democrat rulers of California trying to ban or punish any moral values they disagree with, here’s some real hope for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s big decision recognizing the First Amendment right of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to NOT be forced to promote values that they oppose (e.g., killing preborn babies via abortion) has set a key precedent for the protected speech of other organizations and business owners with moral values.

As the pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel notes (quoting from the June 26 opinion in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra):

This case will also have an impact on laws that seek to ban counsel for unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or identity (SOCE). The opinion explicitly adopts the arguments Liberty Counsel has made all along in SOCE cases, which is that “professional speech” cannot be exempted as some “new category of speech.”

The opinion states: “The dangers associated with content-based regulations of speech are also present in the context of professional speech. As with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information… Take medicine, for example. ‘Doctors help patients make deeply personal decisions, and their candor is crucial.’ Throughout history, governments have ‘manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse’ to increase state power and suppress minorities.'”Justice Thomas notes that professional disagreements about the efficacy of professional services cannot be used to suppress speech.

Therefore, have hope! As you know, AB 2943 banning the free speech of counselors, ministries, churches that help people overcome unwanted homosexual or transsexual desires is advancing through the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature. These Democrat politicians don’t care about your basic liberties — they just do the bidding of their tyrannical special-interest supporters (“LGBT’ groups, Planned Parenthood abortionists, etc.)

So even though it’s probable that the Democrat rulers of California will pass AB 2943, it’s also highly probable that the right lawsuit or lawsuits could use National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra to win a future U.S. Supreme Court victory that broadly protects moral speech in America. A success here would not only strike down AB 2943, thus protecting counselors who help adults overcome homosexuality or transsexuality, but would also affirm the right of counselors to help minors who struggle with homosexuality or transsexuality (which Governor Jerry Brown and the Democrats banned in 2012).

This is why I’m asking you to use the White House web form to send a strong message to President Donald Trump. Urge him to “Nominate a strict constructionist and originalist like Neil Gorsuch who will be loyal to the written Constitution, not loyal to their feelings or liberal revisionism like the four leftists currently on the high court. And please don’t nominate William Pryor, who has been inconsistent and even unconstitutional in his rulings.”

“..on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.”