Re: [Marxism] Cal AG Brown asks court to overturn Proposition 8

[Shacht@xxxxxxx]

This answers Shane Mage's question about why no one has challenged  
Proposition 8 under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. 
The  
Supreme Court'suse of precedent is to decide a case on the narrowest grounds  
practicable. The Full Faith and Credit Clause would give too much leeway  for 
the 
recognition of other rights. Thus, for example, Edwards v. California -  the 
right to travel interstate (Edwards was charged with bringing his brother or  
brother in law into California when he was a vagrant during the thirties at  
the 
time when California's borders were being patrolled by the Los Angeles  
Police Department under the guise of keeping them out). This was the  test case 
for 
"Oakies" being turned back at the border.
 
As originally litigated within California courts (the case began with a  
trial in the municipal court in Yuba City, California) a major part of the  
defense was not the 14th Amendment Equal Protection of the Laws provision, but  
the 
inherent "privileges and immunities" clause of the body of the Constitution  
itself as a fundamental right that no law could controvert. Searching for the  
narrowest interpretation to avoid creating new rights, the Supreme Court held  
that preventing citizens from crossing internal state borders was an  
interference with ...interstate commerce. Workers are chattels, of  course.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu