4 ms·
Did you not read the relevant portion of California's constitution? If any judicial ruling or people like yourself find any ambiguity to those words, we'll make
by atomi 7y ago
Did you not read the relevant portion of California's constitution? If any judicial ruling or people like yourself find any ambiguity to those words, we'll make sure to clear them up for you in future legislative acts.
- rayiner 7y agoPlease read the article I linked, it describes exactly what the California court of appeals has said in this case. In particular, the Supreme Court held that in 1984 that this provision of the California constitution can't override the scope of property right that conveyed from Mexico/Spain after the Meixcan-American war: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12271413444378083765&q=466+us+198&hl=en&as_sdt=20006 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=122714134443780.... The California court of appeals has already applied that precedent to this case. That was resolved years ago.
- atomi 7y agoSo what? That's not to say Congress isn't able to resolve this through their own legislation. The judicial branch only interprets the law; they don't make it.
- beerandt 7y agoEven Congress can't override a ratified treaty with a law. Treaties are the law of the land. Edit: The president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, and Congress can certainly repeal a treaty (or even edit it) using the typical lawmaking process. But passing a simple law isn't going to override a treaty on it's own. And it would almost certainly have international repercussions. That said, in this case, the rights have already been granted to the property owners by the US in the form of a converted land patent, and changing that retroactively would almost certainly count as an expropriation / taking anyway. So you might as well expropriate from the get go, without going to the trouble of dealing with Congress.
- atomi 7y agoOf course they can. And they can do so with or without consulting with a treaty partner. It's called sovereignty.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stjohnswarts 7y agoWouldn't that make treaties useless if you can just back out of them (unless of course that is a party violates its tenents). I am pretty sure that a treaty supercedes any other laws or judicial decisions unless one of the parties breaks the agreed upon treaty.
- beerandt 7y agoBacking out isn't as bad as just breaking/ violating it, but yes, international reputation rests on a country keeping promises made in treaties. And in the US, the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states that ratified treaties are the "supreme law of the land," second only to the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court, in it's famous Holland ruling, clarified that this includes laws and policy that otherwise would be a State matter, like land rights.
- madhadron 7y agoThe native tribes in the US would beg to differ.
- subsaharancoder 7y agopsst..pretty sure the judicial branch already went off the rails on that and has been actively making laws instead of interpreting them ergo "judicial activism"
- yostrovs 7y agoInternational treaties that are ratified override any act of Congress. Only the Constitution is superior.
- dang 7y agoCan you please not post in the flamewar style here? We're trying for curious conversation, which that kills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- atomi 7y agoCan you be more specific?