PDA

View Full Version : State constitutional amendment requiring strict scrutiny


jorgyusa
05-25-2012, 7:58 AM
Interesting idea coming out of Louisiana. It is a state constitutional amendment that requires a 2nd amendment strict scrutiny test on any gun related law.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/measure_to_protect_gun_rights.html

I am wondering if in California we could get the public behind a similar but broader concept. A constitutional amendment requiring strict scrutiny on any enumerated constitutional right. Seems to me that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives could could get behind the concept. This could be a lot more palatable to the general public than trying to add 2nd amendment language to the state constitution.

njineermike
05-25-2012, 8:00 AM
If it was phrased as strict scrutiny on ALL amendments and freedoms, maybe. Then again, you'd the issue of the collection of village idiots in Sacramento actually being able to scrutinize something.....

littlejake
05-25-2012, 8:33 AM
Or, an Amendment that removes immunity from any state elected office holder who authors, introduces, votes for, signs into law any Bill that is later found unconstitutional.

Make them liable for civil damages to the harmed class of citizens. Put their personal fortunes on the line. Allow for a court finding that the nature of the harm is so egregious that it rises to criminal.

IVC
05-25-2012, 9:48 AM
Good intention, but doesn't work that way. We already have the strict scrutiny requirement for the fundamental rights, but it comes down to what a fundamental right is. That's where it gets tricky. Say you have a "gun law," but the opposition claims it's a "public nuisance law." Now you have to go to court to determine what it is before you can apply any 2A argument, so by the time it all gets resolved, you are no better off than if you didn't have the explicit "strict scrutiny amendment."

That is exactly how the current court battles are fought and why it all needs to go all the way up to SCOTUS - they need to define the scope and meaning of 2A for the lower courts to follow. That's why we need a good "carry" case to settle that side of the "keep and bear."

vantec08
05-25-2012, 9:51 AM
Or, an Amendment that removes immunity from any state elected office holder who authors, introduces, votes for, signs into law any Bill that is later found unconstitutional.

Make them liable for civil damages to the harmed class of citizens. Put their personal fortunes on the line. Allow for a court finding that the nature of the harm is so egregious that it rises to criminal.

Dam right. Put a personal price on those who tamper with the BOR, including criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights.

hoffmang
05-25-2012, 6:16 PM
For a host of reasons, it's not yet time to try to run a proposition in CA. Should the next round of Supreme Court cases not get cert, then it may be time to do some polling...

-Gene