Christopher Krueger, representative for the Attorney General’s office. Justice asks him which side he’s on. Representing the challengers’ side (i.e., anti-8).
Justice: Do you agree that it’s a revision?
Krueger: No. It’s an amendment. Under case law, it’s not a revision.
The Raven case from 1990 keeps getting brought up today.
Justice: You disagree with the challengers on revision vs amendment.
Krueger: The AG takes position that it’s not a revision; it’s unconstitutional.
Talk of “Inalienable”
Justices: Can the people amend their constitution? What are the limitations? What is the extent of that limitation?
Justice: What does “inalienable” include?
Justice: “Right of privacy” was added in 1972.
The people also have a right to fish.
Justice Baxter: Talk of death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment and the Anderson case and the people reinstituted the death penalty via the Amendment process... was that valid (Kruger: Yes). Then why not Prop 8?
Krueger is stymied by the double-standard.
Justice: Article 18, Sec 3. (amending the Constitution vis initiative).. is amendment the constitution an inalienable?
Krueger reluctantly agrees, then tries to justify the AG office’s opposition to Prop 8.
Justice Kennard: The right of the people to change or alter has been a basic, fundamental, “inalienable” right. But you would have us choose between these two rights, the “inalienable right to marry” and the people’s right to change the constitution via amendment. The people establish the constitution and the judges’ powers are limited.
“Draconian” finally uttered by Krueger.
Judges keep pressing on what are inalienable rights.
Is there a difference between inalienable rights and fundamental rights?
How do we determine which amendments are OK and which are not?
Fun seeing Krueger squirm throughout all this.
Ken Starr up now (heaven help us)