Michigander
Member
I cannot find a transcript of the arguements, but I found it interesting when watching it on CSPAN.
The defense attorney was very knowlegable, prepared an articulate.
What I found a bit disturbing was when some of the justices brought up the the Second Amendment.
The case is not about the constitutionality of same-sex marriages, but only concerns whether or not the mayor of San Fransisco (or any mayor in California) has the authority to issue marriage lisences to same-sex partners in violation of California state statutes.
The argument by the defense was made that any public official, in this case the executive branch, must consider first the constitutionality of any law prior to enforcing it. Secondly, if there is any question, the official should look to prior court precident via the State Attorney General or other avenues.
There were a number of cases in which an official chose not to enforce a rule or law which he/she believed to be unconstitutional. In those opinions, it was acknowledged, in some cases stressed, that indeed all public officials must consider the constitutionality of the law they are going to enforce.
After the defense, to me, made a very strong case, a couple of the justices brought up a question (I'm paraphrasing): "So, if a mayor of a city decides that a particular law regarding firearms is unconstitutional, then he/she has a duty to ignore and/or violate that law?" This question was itterated a few times in different wording. IIRC, the defense attorney stood firm on her ground and said, basically, that yes, that would indeed be the case.
The tone of voice, facial expressions and general demeanor of the justices who asked that question indicated to me that to them, this hypothetical question had an absolute, obvious, inescapable answer. It was as though they were throwing it out there as a, "see, it can't be so, because what would it mean for firearm laws if they were deemed unconstitutional by a mayor(s)?"
Of course they did acknowledge there was discussion/debate as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, but it was obvious, at least to me, why they used that particular hypothetical.
The defense attorney was very knowlegable, prepared an articulate.
What I found a bit disturbing was when some of the justices brought up the the Second Amendment.
The case is not about the constitutionality of same-sex marriages, but only concerns whether or not the mayor of San Fransisco (or any mayor in California) has the authority to issue marriage lisences to same-sex partners in violation of California state statutes.
The argument by the defense was made that any public official, in this case the executive branch, must consider first the constitutionality of any law prior to enforcing it. Secondly, if there is any question, the official should look to prior court precident via the State Attorney General or other avenues.
There were a number of cases in which an official chose not to enforce a rule or law which he/she believed to be unconstitutional. In those opinions, it was acknowledged, in some cases stressed, that indeed all public officials must consider the constitutionality of the law they are going to enforce.
After the defense, to me, made a very strong case, a couple of the justices brought up a question (I'm paraphrasing): "So, if a mayor of a city decides that a particular law regarding firearms is unconstitutional, then he/she has a duty to ignore and/or violate that law?" This question was itterated a few times in different wording. IIRC, the defense attorney stood firm on her ground and said, basically, that yes, that would indeed be the case.
The tone of voice, facial expressions and general demeanor of the justices who asked that question indicated to me that to them, this hypothetical question had an absolute, obvious, inescapable answer. It was as though they were throwing it out there as a, "see, it can't be so, because what would it mean for firearm laws if they were deemed unconstitutional by a mayor(s)?"
Of course they did acknowledge there was discussion/debate as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, but it was obvious, at least to me, why they used that particular hypothetical.
