On Nov.4th 2008, a California ballot proposed an amendment to the California constitution called Proposition 8, also called the “California Marriage Protection Act.” This amendment added to Section 7.5 of the California constitution that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The fight between the supporters and the opponents of the bill lasted for years. On Feb.7th 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. This paper will discuss the conflict between the state court power and federal court power as well as the perspective of the Federalist. Publius promised people the ultimate power; he also had concerns over pure democracy.
“A pure democracy…, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.”
Publius worried the majority would use their power to oppress the interest of the rest while the opinion of the majority might not be right. This majority tyranny occurs in Proposition 8 case. The supporters of same-sex marriage are the minority whose interests are overrode by the majority 52%. However, this result is inevitable because “Direct democracy is, by its nature, based on the principle of the
