tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post8485568388624042862..comments2024-03-15T01:11:32.832-07:00Comments on Bardiac: Go Iowa!Bardiachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-37809994640520557142009-04-07T09:24:00.000-07:002009-04-07T09:24:00.000-07:00vermont overrode the guv's veto!vermont overrode the guv's veto!kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-64495707919423991262009-04-05T05:28:00.000-07:002009-04-05T05:28:00.000-07:00Kathy a., Thanks for your responses. It's helpful...Kathy a., Thanks for your responses. It's helpful to have someone who actually knows something about law give some insight. Thanks :)Bardiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-55936668223299430802009-04-03T18:37:00.000-07:002009-04-03T18:37:00.000-07:00oh, wow wow wow. this is a pure beauty of an opin...oh, wow wow wow. this is a pure beauty of an opinion! as these things go, very readable and understandable. well supported in its reasoning, and lots of cites to weighty sources. even a section on the elephant in the room, religious beliefs, which are constitutionally irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>i can't promise my supremes will follow suit -- news accounts of oral argument were discouraging, and the CA supremes do not hold argument before a tentative opinion is in place -- but the reasons they should are all here.<BR/><BR/>heh -- my verification word is twist.kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-69426364779462352602009-04-03T17:21:00.000-07:002009-04-03T17:21:00.000-07:00the opinion is also a bit of a crash course on the...the opinion is also a bit of a crash course on the separation of powers and equal protection. <BR/><BR/>a lot of the reasoning relies on solid, well-established US supreme court law -- and that is overlaid with very nice iowa law, which often follows and sometimes precedes groundbreaking interpretations of the federal constitution. this decision itself is based on the iowa constitution, so the US supremes cannot touch it. BUT, it is <I>exactly</I> these kinds of legal developments that press the US supremes to reconsider and clarify the US constitution's bounds over time.kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-89909306037311588302009-04-03T17:11:00.000-07:002009-04-03T17:11:00.000-07:00i'm only about 20 pages in so far, but this seems ...i'm only about 20 pages in so far, but this seems to me a well-crafted opinion, hitting so many strong notes.<BR/><BR/>one bit strikes me as encouragement for the cal supremes to do the right thing: "While the constitution is the supreme law and cannot be altered by <I>the enactment of an ordinary statute</I>, the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa retain the ultimate power to shape it over time. See Iowa Const. art. X (“Amendments to the Constitution”).kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.com