Sunday, March 1, 2009

Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter: DUELING LAWYERS IN PROP 8 CASE ARE A STUDY IN OPPOSITES

03/01/09 Sacramento Bee: “This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians,” Shannon Minter said. “If the court were to say it’s OK … then no one’s rights would mean very much.” Although Kenneth Starr declined interview requests, his co-counsel, Andrew Pugno, of Protect Marriage - Yes on 8, advanced his own counter-historical idea of a constitution's foundation: “Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution. If the court misinterprets those rights, it’s the people’s job to correct that by clarifying the constitution.”

1 comment:

Michael Ejercito said...

The California Supreme Court had ruled on the issue of whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians.

"The people could by amendment of the Constitution repeal section 13 of article I in its entirety"- In re Lance w., supra, 37 Ca1.3d 873

Commentators, Subjects and Cases