SCOTUS Unleashes Gubernatorial Dictatorship in U.S.
Last week’s most notable decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States will once again have major impact upon America, and possibly global, political and social reality. As has been the social pattern for all the years of the republic, intense and emotional oral arguments and political confrontation have been guaranteed for decades and a generation, perhaps.
RagingElephants.org was particularly drawn to the SCOTUS decision on California’s Proposition 8. From our point of view, governors of the states and territories now have been granted dictatorial power over their respective electorates.
It Will Be Useful to Review the Life of Prop 8
California’s Proposition 8 was on the ballot in 2008 – the year of the Obama Tsunami. Of course, California solidly backed the socialist Democrat Obama by a huge margin of 61% – 37%. Yet, at the same time, the voters passed Prop 8 that would constitutionally ban same-sex “marriage” in the state by a 52% – 48% margin.
It was an amazing victory for traditional marriage maintaining the streak of same-sex “marriage” being banned in every state that it was present on the ballot up to that time. The voting block that carried the day for Prop 8 and propelled it to passage happened to be blacks with 70% of them voting to ban same-sex “marriage”.
The homosexual lobby and activists didn’t give up. They went to the reliable backup – the socialist, tyrannical judges of the California and federal judiciary. Subsequently, lower courts invalidated the election results and sided against the electorate and overturned the will of the people (including 70% of black voters).
Upon its passage Prop 8 was destined to go before the SCOTUS and did so in this year’s sitting of the high court. An issue for the justices was whether the litigators advocating for Prop 8 had standing to do so. Their ruling on last Wednesday said that the citizens arguing on behalf of Prop 8 didn’t have standing. Therefore, the all-powerful, all-mighty Supreme Court of the United States concluded it wasn’t empowered to settle the issue. Thus, status quo reigns in California as established by the tyrannical lower courts and same-sex “marriages” will resume in quick order.
What Was the SCOTUS Saying by Leaning on Standing?
“The wrong people are arguing this case”, is what the SCOTUS was saying. The position of the justices was that the litigators on behalf of upholding the passing of Prop 8 had to be officers of the California government. It wasn’t the government of California that was standing up for the will of the electorate, therefore the advocates that went before the court didn’t have standing – no right to be party to the legal action.
How Did the SCOTUS Unleash Dictatorship?
The executive branch of California state government is on record as being against Prop 8. They are leftist, statist, anti-Church, anti-Bible, and anti-Christian. They are Democrats. The executive wants same-sex “marriage” in California although the voters said otherwise. So, the California executive refused to defend the will of the voters. In essence, they just decided not to participate, not to show up, not to enforce the results of the election.
But, the SCOTUS established that only the government of California could stand before them to argue on behalf of Prop 8. This establishes a crazy precedent. Specifically, if a state executive – a governor – decides he or she disagrees with an election result, that executive is essentially not compelled to defend and/or enact the election result. By the SCOTUS saying that only the state government is permitted to defend the law, then a state executive simply has to opt out of the judicial process, and the will of the executive becomes reality over the will of the electorate.
A constitutional referendum is placed on the ballot of any state or territory in the union. It passes by the vote of electorate. The losers bring suit and the executive of the state is on the loser’s side. It proceeds to the SCOTUS. The government is the only entity that has standing to defend the referendum. The governor refuses to defend the referendum leaving no entity to properly advocate on behalf of the electorate. Thus, the losers and executive win, the will of the electorate is nullified, and the executive has been given a sure and passive way to level the will of the state government over the governed.
Dictatorship. Passive, perhaps. But, dictatorship, nonetheless.
Copyright © 2013 by RagingElephants.org