How does one Challenge a California Initiative Amendment as being Unconstitutional?

[Freemanontheland]

Ok, so the amendment was passed 1966. That's not the relevant thing for the statute of limitations. What exactly did the state do to you as a result of that amendment, what harm was suffered because of it, and when did it occur? Just the fact that the amendment is on the books doesn't give you a claim. You have to have actually suffered some kind of harm as a result of it. And when that harm occurred is generally what starts the clock ticking on the statute of limitation.

As for an injunction, you have a similar problem. You have to show that you are suffering from some action of the state or that the state is about to actually take an action that will cause you harm to get an injunction. You can't get an injunction based on a concern that perhaps someday the state might do something that would cause you harm.

This helps. Thanks.
I was arrested several times over the past 30 years, but not in the last 20 or so. Never convicted, just harassed like crazy. I suffered damages from those arrests, including psychological trauma that prevents me from sleeping at night. I have serious insomnia from this now, still. I just discovered this fraud recently, and now I feel like something should be done about it.

 

[quincy]

This helps. Thanks.
I was arrested several times over the past 30 years, but not in the last 20 or so. Never convicted, just harassed like crazy. I suffered damages from those arrests, including psychological trauma that prevents me from sleeping at night. I have serious insomnia from this now, still. I just discovered this fraud recently, and now I feel like something should be done about it.

I am afraid that trauma from your arrests 20 to 30 years ago will not help you support any action now.

Perhaps instead of looking at a lawsuit, you should look at starting a grassroots movement to change the law.

 

[Zigner]

For the record, throwing a tantrum when you don't get your way doesn't help.

Your mindlessness deserves nothing. Go ... yourself

 

[Zigner]

There is no provision other than Title XVIII in the California Constitution, where it authorizes Revising or Repealing the Constitution. It must be done by Constitutional Convention.

Your basic premise is wrong, as a constitutional convention is not the only way, per the California Constitution, as revised by the second constitutional convention in 1879.

 

[FlyingRon]

Your basic premise is wrong, as a constitutional convention is not the only way, per the California Constitution, as revised by the second constitutional convention in 1879.

Yep, but the ballot initiative provision wasn't added until the 1970's I think, so it post dates the 1966 amendment he vaguely refers to.

I'm unclear what he's referring to, however. There was nothing passed in 1966 as near as I can tell. The nearest thing that MIGHT fit was that the state supreme court in 1966 declared a ballot initiative in 1964 regarding landlord rights (specifically allowing them free reign to potentially discirminate in setting rents), was declared unconstitutional 1966 (note that wasn't an amendment to the Constitution, just an enacted state law).

Still I can't even begin to understand how he has a claim even if there was an unconstitutional law (amendments to the Constitution are themselves not possible to be unconstitutional, though they may have been improperly adopted).

 

[CdwJava]

Fascinating that all those attorneys and legal scholars in this state and others have managed to miss this egregious violation of the California Constitution for the past 50 years. Hmm ...

 

[quincy]

Fascinating that all those attorneys and legal scholars in this state and others have managed to miss this egregious violation of the California Constitution for the past 50 years. Hmm ...

Perhaps the psychological harm suffered from his traumatic arrests 20-30 years ago has affected Freemanontheland in more ways than just insomnia.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Still I can't even begin to understand how he has a claim even if there was an unconstitutional law (amendments to the Constitution are themselves not possible to be unconstitutional, though they may have been improperly adopted).

Any law or action that violates the constitution is unconstitutional. So if an amendment was added but by a process not allowed by the constitution that violates the constitution and is thus unconstitutional. Because of that, the courts would strip it from the state constitution.

 

[HighwayMan]

I will not pay an attorney to do something like this. I will do it myself if I need to.

You don't seem to understand that you are in way over your head. You will fail miserably. You claim to know what you need to know but then turn to this forum to find out the basics, which demonstrates that you cannot do this yourself.

...and prevent me from my liberties and freedom.

This doesn't make grammatical sense. If this is example of how you intend to write up court paperwork you won't be taken too seriously.