• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting commission

 
 
 
ksen said:
dismal said:
Does it say they are the legislature?

What you posted so far suggests not.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I got a bit too zealous with that claim.

However, legislative authority does rest with the people of AZ per their constitution.
Click to expand...

Ah, well the US Constitution gives the power over elections to the Legislature.
 
Ok, its easy to see you aren't thinking things through.

IF you are arguing that the people of Arizona can't do something in their State Constitution because it conflicts with something in the Federal Constitution, then you are de facto arguing that that thing is unconstitutional. You argue that the people of Arizona can't pass a law on redistricting by referendum because the Federal Constitution says this is reserved for a 'legislature' which you interpret to mean a body of elected officials.

Ergo: you are arguing that the passage of such a law by referendum is Unconstitutional, therefore, the clause that allows it is ALSO unconstitutional. You might never have argued that particular point, but in law, that is how things work, and just because you never said something, doesn't mean that it isn't an inescapable consequence of what you DO argue.

Also, I note that the state of Arizona has been around for a long time, and it would be very radical to now be challenging the constitutionality of its state constitution. You think that would have been reviewed while the State was in the process of being admitted as a state.
 
If only we had thought beforehand to set up a group of people that could decide if something was constitutional or not.
 
ksen said:
If only we had thought beforehand to set up a group of people that could decide if something was constitutional or not.
Click to expand...

If we only had a group of people we set up beforehand to decide what was Constitutional or not that gave a shit what the Constitution said.

This one is a pretty easy one to interpret. The power is specifically and directly given to the legislature.

People who wrote the Constitution seemed to understand there is a difference between "the legislature" and "the people".

Note, for example:

Article I, Section 3:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Whereas in Amendment 17 we find the following:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

It would seem odd indeed that they went through a process that involved super majorities in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states to amend these couple words that mean exactly the same thing.
 
[a]ny law which may be enacted by the Legislature under this Constitution may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.
Click to expand...

---Arizona constitution Art. IV, pt. 1, §1.

So if Arizona's definition of the Legislature includes "the people", this section is actually saying: [a]ny law which may be enacted by the people under this Constitution may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.

Or how about this:

1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature
Click to expand...

Independently of the legislature - but if the legislature is also "the people", does that mean independently of the people as well?

Also, the first part of the above seems to distinguish "the people" from "the legislature", that they are two different things. Was this independent commission a senate and a house of representatives, the definition provided of "the legislature" in AZ's own constitution?
 
Arizona said:
[a]ny law which may be enacted by the Legislature under this Constitution may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.
Click to expand...
Axulus said:
Independently of the legislature - but if the legislature is also "the people", does that mean independently of the people as well?

Also, the first part of the above seems to distinguish "the people" from "the legislature", that they are two different things. Was this independent commission a senate and a house of representatives, the definition provided of "the legislature" in AZ's own constitution?
Click to expand...

That's a warped interpretation. The line quoted from the AZ clearly establishes that the people and the legislature are equivalent: Anything the legislature can do the people can also do. Therefore the whining about how only the legislature can do this is moot: No one is arguing that the people ARE the legislature. The law clearly establishes that the two are EQUIVALENT and that anything the legislature can do, the people can also do. Therefore, if the Federal Constitution says that a state legislature can do something, in Arizona, that means that the people can also do that thing, because the AZ constitution establishes that.

It's really quite simple, when one is not desperate to preserve gerrymandering.
 
Sarpedon said:
Axulus said:
Independently of the legislature - but if the legislature is also "the people", does that mean independently of the people as well?

Also, the first part of the above seems to distinguish "the people" from "the legislature", that they are two different things. Was this independent commission a senate and a house of representatives, the definition provided of "the legislature" in AZ's own constitution?
Click to expand...

That's a warped interpretation. The line quoted from the AZ clearly establishes that the people and the legislature are equivalent: Anything the legislature can do the people can also do. Therefore the whining about how only the legislature can do this is moot: No one is arguing that the people ARE the legislature. The law clearly establishes that the two are EQUIVALENT and that anything the legislature can do, the people can also do. Therefore, if the Federal Constitution says that a state legislature can do something, in Arizona, that means that the people can also do that thing, because the AZ constitution establishes that.

It's really quite simple, when one is not desperate to preserve gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

None of this hand waving and flim-flammery magically turns "the people" into "the Legislature". And since the US Constitution grants this power to the Legislature, the people of Arizona do not have the power to take it away.
 
God forbid the people should have power in a democracy.

You're just pissed off because I burned your strawman. You were arguing that the only way one could argue our side is to assume the 'people' and the 'legislature' are the same thing. Which is just plain stupid. The Constitution of Arizona, which has now essentially upheld by the supreme court, allows the people to perform the functions of the legislature. Go and clutch your guns until you feel better.
 
dismal said:
Sarpedon said:
That's a warped interpretation. The line quoted from the AZ clearly establishes that the people and the legislature are equivalent: Anything the legislature can do the people can also do. Therefore the whining about how only the legislature can do this is moot: No one is arguing that the people ARE the legislature. The law clearly establishes that the two are EQUIVALENT and that anything the legislature can do, the people can also do. Therefore, if the Federal Constitution says that a state legislature can do something, in Arizona, that means that the people can also do that thing, because the AZ constitution establishes that.

It's really quite simple, when one is not desperate to preserve gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

None of this hand waving and flim-flammery magically turns "the people" into "the Legislature". And since the US Constitution grants this power to the Legislature, the people of Arizona do not have the power to take it away.
Click to expand...

The people of AZ took nothing away from the AZ state legislature. The AZ state legislature could turn around tomorrow and pass a law overturning the initiative law as far as I know.
 
ksen said:
dismal said:
None of this hand waving and flim-flammery magically turns "the people" into "the Legislature". And since the US Constitution grants this power to the Legislature, the people of Arizona do not have the power to take it away.
Click to expand...

The people of AZ took nothing away from the AZ state legislature. The AZ state legislature could turn around tomorrow and pass a law overturning the initiative law as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Sort of irrelevant if we can stay focused on what the US Constitution plainly says.
 
Pointing out some of the absurd things you say is not irrelevant.
 
Suppose Arizona's constitution provided for a supreme court, a state senate, and a governor. Would they then be unable to send senators to the US senate because Arizona does not have a legislature?

The US constitution gives no guidelines on how state governments must be organized. It is entirely possible for Alaska to decide to reform it's state constitution to make Sara Palin it's royal monarch. At which point she would be the only person in Alaska making laws. Would Alaska cease to be a US state at that point? Would Alaska be ineligible to send Senators to congress? No, and No. The US constituition gives no guidelines on how a state must organize it's government. We must assume then that when the US constitution refers to a state's legislature, they are referring to that state's legislative body.

I don't have any proof but I bet that if gerymandering was exploited to the advantages of Democrats more than Republicans this year that the most conservative members of the court would have a very different opinion.
 
I would like to add to my previous post that the Constituition does say in article 4 that the states must have a republican form of government. A USSC case back in 1849, Luthor v Borden, says that it is up to the US congress to determine whether or not a state has a "republican form of government," so If Alaska did elect Sarah Palin as monarch it might actually be considered "republican" so long as she was elected as a representative for the state, and the US Congress agreed to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom