The mortgage meltdown has been painted by some as a meltdown of the subprime mortgage market. That's starting to change, as the number of foreclosures on prime mortgages to people with good credit records is starting to climb. 6% either in default or in foreclosure, in California it's 7.5% in default and 3.5% in foreclosure. Those numbers are disturbingly high, considering. And for the first time prime fixed-rate mortgages are a larger percentage of new foreclosures than sub-prime or adjustable-rate mortgages.
The bottom ain't here yet, folks.
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Proposition 8 and the CA Supreme Court
Arguments to overturn Proposition 8 finished up today. Now, myself, I don't think the justices are going to go for the "revision to the state constitution" argument. An amendment is a revision, and it's allowed. There's no language in the state constitution itself barring amendments from changing existing terms. If that's all that's being argued, Propsition 8 stands.
I'd argue on two different grounds.
First, that while Proposition 8 defines marriage to be between a man and a woman, it doesn't remove the language elsewhere in the constitution that requires the state to treat all citizens equally. As long as that other language stands, Proposition 8 can't simply handwave that requirement away. If two men show up wanting to be married by the state, the state has to treat them the same as it would a man and a woman until a constitutional amendment removing that requirement is passed. And Proposition 8 doesn't remove that requirement.
Second, Proposition 8 is an infringement on freedom of religion and is barred by the US Constitution. No state is allowed to have provisions in it's state constitution that violate the US Constitution, after all. Religions do define marriage, that's what the Religious Right is in an uproar about here. But not all religions define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. By writing that definition into the constitution, Proposition 8 interferes with the right of those religions to marry couples according to their beliefs. You can only do that if you can show an overriding societal need for that interference and that there is no less intrusive way of meeting that need. Proposition 8 doesn't demonstrate that there's any overriding need to bar same-sex marriages, so it fails the test.
I'd argue on two different grounds.
First, that while Proposition 8 defines marriage to be between a man and a woman, it doesn't remove the language elsewhere in the constitution that requires the state to treat all citizens equally. As long as that other language stands, Proposition 8 can't simply handwave that requirement away. If two men show up wanting to be married by the state, the state has to treat them the same as it would a man and a woman until a constitutional amendment removing that requirement is passed. And Proposition 8 doesn't remove that requirement.
Second, Proposition 8 is an infringement on freedom of religion and is barred by the US Constitution. No state is allowed to have provisions in it's state constitution that violate the US Constitution, after all. Religions do define marriage, that's what the Religious Right is in an uproar about here. But not all religions define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. By writing that definition into the constitution, Proposition 8 interferes with the right of those religions to marry couples according to their beliefs. You can only do that if you can show an overriding societal need for that interference and that there is no less intrusive way of meeting that need. Proposition 8 doesn't demonstrate that there's any overriding need to bar same-sex marriages, so it fails the test.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Shopping bags
California is in the process of adopting laws that either ban plastic disposable shopping bags or impose a fee on them. Myself, I don't see what the problem is. Most stores have good-quality reusable cloth shopping bags for sale for about a dollar each. They're washable if they get dirty. They'll last for several years. I figure if I go shopping once a week and can use each bag for 2 years before I have to replace it, it's costing me about a penny per trip. For that penny I get a much sturdier bag with better handles. It's much easier to carry several of them thanks to the longer handles, and they don't dig into my fingers and palm so much. They'll hold a lot more without ripping, especially heavy stuff like cans or bottles. And we've had six months warning of this, more than enough time to get one more every trip so you don't have to buy a bunch all at once. I simply don't see what all the fuss is about.
And for those who say it's the principle of the thing, I expect to see you out in the empty lots and gutters picking up all the stray plastic disposable bags. You want something that makes a mess? You clean that mess up, or stop your whining and accept the fact that the rest of us are tired of it.
And for those who say it's the principle of the thing, I expect to see you out in the empty lots and gutters picking up all the stray plastic disposable bags. You want something that makes a mess? You clean that mess up, or stop your whining and accept the fact that the rest of us are tired of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
