This is interesting:
Brown doesn't appear to be vulnerable to the same criticism, as he hasn't sued anyone and has left the defense of Prop. 8 to its proponents. But his argument against the initiative isn't based on any clearly established legal doctrine or precedent, the standard suggested by Deukmejian and other former attorneys general.
In his filing, Brown said Prop. 8 is probably valid under the state high court's past criteria for ballot measures that amend the state Constitution. In particular, he said, it is not such a fundamental change to the structure of government that it would amount to a constitutional revision, which requires a two-thirds legislative vote to reach the ballot.
But he said Prop. 8 should be struck down because "inalienable rights" in the state Constitution, including the liberty and privacy rights that support equal access to marriage, shouldn't be subject to repeal by majority vote. The court has never considered that theory.
"My job is to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced, and that includes Article I of the Constitution," where those rights are set forth, Brown said in an interview.
In short, this is all about his political aspirations, specifically the governorship, and he doesn't want to offend a key constituency. That is what his flip-flop is all about. However, it is more likely his political career is over with.
No comments:
Post a Comment