Legislative Judgement Overrides the Constitution

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

When they passed Measure 114, Oregon voters made a legislative judgment about the serious and immediate threat that large capacity magazines pose to public safety, and that judgment is entitled to this court’s deference.

Anit Jindal
Representing Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Oregon State Police Superintendent Casey Codding
September 18, 2023
Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional

Interesting. I did not know that a popular vote by a 50.6% majority could override the constitution. That’s good to know.

But I’m sure it will come as a surprise to many in the deep south where opposition to desegregation of the schools would easily pass by popular vote.

And I can hardly wait for some state to ban Christianity and another state to require all people to attend a Christian church at least three days each month and tithe 10% of their income to the church. And don’t forget about required daily testimony of how climate change has affected you, while the neighboring state requires everyone to meet their daily minimum CO2 output to help prevent global cooling. And, of course, being accused of homosexuality is punishable by death without trial in one state and, in another state, all 3rd graders must pass a proficiency test in front of the class of four different homosexual acts in each of five different positions.

The popular vote will be entitled such deference just as is the case with the ban of magazines in common use.

This lawyer really must have crap for brains if they actually believe that claim. I’m thinking it is just another case of the “Big Lie” because no degreed lawyer can be that stupid and/or ignorant.

Share

8 thoughts on “Legislative Judgement Overrides the Constitution”

  2. OK, Oregonians, you voted for it. Who ya gonna get to do it, because oddly enough, the government is still specifically forbidden to do that.

    If you have a company, and there is something you (or the board) wants to do, and doing it would require someone to commit a crime, oddly enough, it’s not a defense to claim that everyone involved was on board with the plan.

    • Only 7 of 36 counties voted for BM114, and all of those were in the Portland metroplex. I voted against both the measure and the governor. This is why Greater Idaho and State of Jefferson have traction as the rest of the state wants to escape Portland

  3. Like Rolf points out, ya, they can be that stupid. They are communists after all. (That meme is hilarious!)
    And we should never underestimate plain greed.
    One of our problems is we feel embarrassed for them. So we cringe at the ignorance on display. Especially when they’re unphased by reality and double-down on it.
    Like Ol’ Charlie used to say; “‘Bout all you can do is knock’em in the head, and throw’em in a ditch.
    Which is coincidental, as that’s exactly what they will do to you if allowed enough power. That or just starved you to death.
    No matter their condition, they don’t rate a pass.

    • I will have sympathy for them and their stupidity if they showed signs of learning something from their embarrassment other than how to try again, more sneakily and harder. Until then, no. Not in the least.

  4. I don’t believe for a second they are buying the crap they’re selling.

    “Oregon voters made a legislative judgment”? Voters are not legislators, they don’t have “legislative judgment.” (Judgment, yes, however poor, but “legislative judgment”, no.)

    “…that judgment is entitled to this court’s deference.” No, it’s not. This is not “Chevron deference”, in which an executive agency charged with regulating a thing, is assumed to be subject matter experts on that thing … and which itself is being challenged, as executive agencies have been demonstrated to abuse that deference.

    Even if it was, what is the “thing” on which voters at large are assumed to be subject matter experts? The firearms and magazines the government deems “too dangerous” for those same voters to own, and tries to restrict every chance they get? What, then, does that say that voters in most states DON’T restrict them, or that 49.4% of Oregon voters voted against restrictions? To which group of subject matter experts is the court to defer?

    The State needs to be very careful which arguments it presents in defense of this unconstitutional abomination. Otherwise, they could end up with a precedent that blows much of their “gun control” agenda out of the water.

  5. Not stupid, evil.

    Sadly, the Constitution is dead. The argument is about what comes next.

  6. Jindal. Kotek. Rosenblum.
    What did the people expect to happen when ruled by foreigners?

Comments are closed.