1
   

SF Mayor engaged in ultra vires act?

 
 
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 03:07 pm
Calif. Supreme Court voids San Francisco gay marriages

Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. . . .

The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass state judicial and legislative branches.

Chief Justice Ronald George noted that Thursday's ruling doesn't address "the substantive legal rights of same sex couples. In actuality, the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authorities granted to them as officeholders."

. . . Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.


See also: San Francisco mayor defies 'gay'-marriage ban

Quote:
Newsom, 36, who took office Jan. 8, [2004], insists he merely is fulfilling his duty.

"A little more than a month ago, I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination,'' Newsom said, according to the San Francisco paper. "Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated.''


If an elected official's "oath of office" requires him to swear to "uphold the Constitution," then how can an official act that the official believes upholds the Constitution be declared an ultra vires act? After all, the Constitution is superior to and trumps any and all laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. Does the California Supreme Court now require elected officials to enforce unconstitutional laws in defiance of their oath of office? What do you say?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 682 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 03:15 pm
The strain of balancing morality and law with The Constitution is beginning to overburden our judicial system.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 03:30 pm
qualified immunity
The California Supreme Court's ruling is at odds with well-established law concerning qualified immunity.

Officials in the executive branch--the law enforcement branch--are subject to liability for violations of civil rights--especially the violations of fundamental rights. Government officials have a duty to support and uphold their state constitutions, but also the United States Constitution.

A public official's enforcement of an unconstitutional statute may well deprive that official of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

If the California State Legislature passed a law that allowed the search of private homes without a warrant--a law that would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment), would the Mayor of San Francisco be required to enforce that state law? The answer is NO. His first obligation is to support and uphold the Constitution. To do otherwise may strip him of qualified immunity and subject him to liability for violations of civil rights.

I'm dumbfounded by this ruling.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » SF Mayor engaged in ultra vires act?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:18:32