Cameron Hamilton (and Brian Ward) Deserve to Never be Elected to Anything Ever Again

[update 8:30 PM: See Hamilton’s respnse and whine about  being exposed in the screenshot. Click on the screenshot to enlarge]

My questions, Cameron Hamilton’s answers, and my initial analysis of his answers, on the eve of the first re-election ballot for Cameron Hamilton and Brian Ward since their infamous and notorious only-in Porterville pro-Prop 8 Resolution put the City’s reputation and economic development efforts on the line unnecessarily.

Cameron Hamilton (and Brian Ward) Deserve to Never be Elected to Anything Ever Again

1 – Do you agree you voted in 2003 to have Council stand against government intrusions on the rights of all citizens?

CH: Yes

2 – Do you agree that the US Supreme Court has indicated that the right to marry is a fundamental right in more than 14 cases over more that 100 years?

CH: No

BC :
————————————-
From an interview on Fox News: OLSON: No. As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We’re not talking about a new right here.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage#ixzz1wsCRSxOe
————————————-

3 – Do you agree that on the day before the Prop 8 Election, Californians had the right to marry anyone of any gender?

CH:Yes, legislative action

BC: Maybe this is the root of your misunderstanding Cam. In fact the right was affirmed by the CA Supreme Court in In Re: Marriage Cases. not in any legislative action.

You wanted to debate and yet do know know even this?

you are hanging your hat on reelection based on your knowledge of Prop 8, and you don’t even know the Court case it was meant to undo?

Really?

Here is just one of about a zilliion articles form the time describing it: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20080527.html

Google is your friend Cam!
—————————-

4 – Do you agree that after Prop 8, the 4th Branch of Government in California took that right away?

CH: Yes, citizens action
———————————–
BC: So, you agree that the 4th Branch of CA State Government acted to remove a right from a disfavored minority.

Good to see you agree with at least that.
————————————-

5 – Do you agree that Council supporting a branch of government taking a right away is counter to the 2003 Resolution that you supported standing up against exactly that?

CH: No

BC: ————————

Language of 2003 Resolution Hamilton voted for:
http://www.bordc.org/detail.php?id=85

“The City of Porterville is committed to upholding the law of the land as well as the human rights of all persons in Porterville, including, but not limited to, United States citizens and citizens of other nations who have entered into the United States in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations, and the free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of California.”

“The City Council of the City of Porterville calls upon all City officials and employees to continue to respect the human rights and civil liberties of all members of this community, including, but not limited to, those who are citizens of other nations who have entered into the United States in accordance with State and Federal laws and regulations, ”

“Section 4. The City Council of the City of Porterville urges the State Legislature, the Governor of the State of California, and the United States Congress, particularly the delegation representing Porterville to actively work for the revocation of any law or executive order that limits or violates fundamental rights and liberties embodied in the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of California.”

Language of the 2008 Prop 8 Resoilution:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby pledges support for Proposition 8 and urges Porterville voters to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage by voting yes on Proposition 8.”

Sol let’s take a brief look at that shall we?

You already agreed in #4 that a right was removed (although you didn’t know which branch affirmed the right, you do agree a right was removed).

That is the effect of the 2008 urging, to urge a branch of government (which you acknowledged in #3) tp remove a right.

You voted for that.

But in 2003, 5 years earlier, you also voted to call on the City, future Councils to (paraphrasing) actively work to revoke any law that limits rights and liberties under the Constitution of the State of California.

You voted for that too Cam.

So in the 5 years in between, you changed your mind and decided, against the words of the 2003 Resoltuion with your name on it, to work FOR the revocation of rights (which you acknowledge was the ultimate effect) as a Council.

So your claim that the two actions are not counter to each other is specious. You DID change your mind, “fil-flop”, and you changed to worked to take rights away from people.

This is your undisputed record now Cam Hamilton!

——————————————————-

6 – Do you agree that in 2008 you voted for a Resolution that Brian Ward introduced that was opposite in spirit and intent to the Resolution that you voted for in 2003, that by its very words urges the 4th Branch to remove Rights that were then held by every Californian eligible to marry?

CH: No
———-
BC:————
See above for #5. Your record is undisputed by your answers above and the actual words of the actual Resolutions that you did this.

Sorry you didn’t realize it until now, but own it Cam Hamilton!
——————–

7 – So sometime between 2003 and 2008, when you voted on each of these Resolutions, your position on whether Government should intrude on removing rights changed, from being squarely against it in 2003 to actually urging it in 2008?

No?

8 – To this very day, on including on this very facebook page, you have stood up and defended the 2008 vote to remove rights as right and proper, and not said a word about the rightness or properness of your 2003 vote to defend the rights of the people against government intrusion. Correct?

No?

9 – No other Council in all of California has voted as ours did in 2008?

Yes

10 – You argue, by disputing my claims, that companies are interested in the environment in which their employees work?

Never argued it one way or amother

11 – You argue that companies have an interest in choosing local governments to work with that support the rights of their employees, and their employees families, in making decisions about where to locate?

never argued it one way or another either

12 – You argue that because companies don’t care about about whether or not local governments care about the working conditions of their employees or their families, that Porterville’s Council standing against the rights of at least some of them is of no interest to them at all?

Never argued one way or another on this one either

13 – Yet you advocate that when it comes to Economic Development, it is important that Porterville can and has distinguished itself form our competition in some ways that you haven’t listed at all, but that regardless of what those ways might be, respect for the rights of employees from the local government, with whom the companies will have, in effect, a long term partnership, is not important to companies?

No

14 – Essay question, please write at least 150 words: Explain why, in 2003 I cared about the government intrusion into the rights of Citizens, but in 2008 my view had changed and I was eager to use the power of my office to urge another branch of government to remove rights from Citizens.

Don’t need 150 words, patriot act and a constitutional amendment to keep traditional marriage between a man and a women after the state legislature usurped the elected prop 22 marriage between a man and women only was the electorate rejecting the elected just as the resolution against the patriot act did, clear enough for you???

7 – So sometime between 2003 and 2008, when you voted on each of these Resolutions, your position on whether Government should intrude on removing rights changed, from being squarely against it in 2003 to actually urging it in 2008?

CH: No
BC: ———————-
You can pretend whatever you like, but the truth is found in your answers for #5 and #6 as I presented just above: you DID violate the urging of the 2003 Resolution by voting for the 2008 Resolution.

you don’t have to like it, but you do have to live with it, this is your record as a Porterville Councilperson Cam Hamilton.
—————————————–__

8 – To this very day, on including on this very facebook page, you have stood up and defended the 2008 vote to remove rights as right and proper, and not said a word about the rightness or properness of your 2003 vote to defend the rights of the people against government intrusion. Correct?

CH: No

BC: So you don’t defend your vote anymore? Is that what you are saying? I will be so happy for Porterville’s future if that is true and you have a last minute enlightenment. Has it happened?

9 – No other Council in all of California has voted as ours did in 2008?

CH: Yes
BC: Glad we agree on that!

10 – You argue, by disputing my claims, that companies are interested in the environment in which their employees work?

CH: Never argued it one way or amother
BC:—————-
But you did. You asked for a detailed argument, I provided it for you via my blog at portervillenerd.com, and some time later you disputed it in general, and when I asked for more specifics, you said you “disputed everything”.

This was one part of my argument which you “disputed everything”.

OK. it won’t surprise me in the least if you didn’t read it, or if you did, that you didn’t understand it, but that is on you. You did respond to it, and when I gave you a chance to explain what parts you didn’t like, you said all of it.

Aside from the merits of the argument, it should concern Porterville voters that you are not capable of reading and understanding the argument I presented, and that you feel such disdain for your constituents that you think they will roll over on your fortune-cookie style arguments and not call you on them.

You need to be able to handle things in much more depth than that as a Council person, and if this is the best you can do when calling me out to challenge you and I do, then that alone is good reason to not vote for you.
————————————-___

11 – You argue that companies have an interest in choosing local governments to work with that support the rights of their employees, and their employees families, in making decisions about where to locate?

CH: never argued it one way or another either
BC: Again same response as # 11. You DID argue it, even if you didn’t bother to read the material you were arguing about. But then, after all this time, you didn’t know that the right to marriage was affirmed in a court case, not by legislative action, yet you want us to believe you understand separations of powers, or are qualified to be an elected government representative yourself.

12 – You argue that because companies don’t care about about whether or not local governments care about the working conditions of their employees or their families, that Porterville’s Council standing against the rights of at least some of them is of no interest to them at all?

CH: Never argued one way or another on this one either
BC: Same response as #11 and #12. You DID argue this. Maybe you just didn’t expect a followup question?

13 – Yet you advocate that when it comes to Economic Development, it is important that Porterville can and has distinguished itself form our competition in some ways that you haven’t listed at all, but that regardless of what those ways might be, respect for the rights of employees from the local government, with whom the companies will have, in effect, a long term partnership, is not important to companies?

CH: No
BC: —————————–
Same as 11. 12. and 13. This is the crux of the argument in the portervillenerd article that you said you disputed “everything”.

Plus, you have been arguing that sufficient, and presumably maximal or optimal economic development has happened despite the Prop 8 Resolution. This is because, if the Prop 8 Resolution does not matter, then ED staff could not have done better than they did. But when you describe what they did, you describe work that happened before 9/2008 (Lowes) or retail that replaces other retail that *left Porterville*.

The net gain is actually very small (not zero, but small).

I think i ti obvious to anyone that Council policies matter in ED because otherwise why does Council spend so much time on it.

Why you think one particalar policy on such a hard stance against the rights of minorities won’t matter when other quality of life issues do, as illustrated on the City’s own economic development web site, is beyond me why you don’t grasp it.

But that you don’t is good reason for you to not be re-elected indeed. The City puts a lot of effort to promote quality of life issues for companies and their employees, and you have worked to undermine it, and the results, by your own description is barely better than a complete wash.

Porterville can do better and deserves a Council that does better, without you Cam Hamilton!

——————————————

14 – Essay question, please write at least 150 words: Explain why, in 2003 I cared about the government intrusion into the rights of Citizens, but in 2008 my view had changed and I was eager to use the power of my office to urge another branch of government to remove rights from Citizens.

CH: Don’t need 150 words, patriot act and a constitutional amendment to keep traditional marriage between a man and a women after the state legislature usurped the elected prop 22 marriage between a man and women only was the electorate rejecting the elected just as the resolution against the patriot act did, clear enough for you???

BC: Don’t need 150 words, or can’t write that many in a persuasive paragraph?

As I demonstrated at the top of this, your premise that the State Legislature acted to usurp Prop 22 and that that is the basis of the Rights that were taken away in the Prop 8 election is false. It was a CA Supreme Court Case, called In Re: Marriage Cases that affirmed the right in May of 2008.

Anyone can read the opinion, hear the arguments and more here on the CA Supreme Court Web site if they don’t believe me on this: http://www.courts.ca.gov/2964.htm

Not only is the premise of your summary wrong, but so is the conclusion.

The issue here is whether or not your actions as Council person were contradictory in 2003 and 2008, and they were as shown above.

How you voted in the election itself is between you and the ballot box.

But in your official capacity in 2003 you voted for Resolution that urged branches of government to work to protect rights (not just form the Patriot Act, but always and into the future indefinitely).

5 years later, in your official capacity again as a Council person, you as an elected official urged a branch of government (the People of the State of California), to take rights away from citizens you voted to protect from such actions in 2003.

This is your history Cam Hamilton: You used your official powers in 2003 urge Council to protect us form the likes of your own 2008 self.

You remain unrepentant, and as you demonstrated in these answers, you don’t even understand the most basic issues of how the rights you urged removed came to be affirmed, let alone why.

And for this, you deserve to never be elected to anything ever again.

Posted in Porterville City Council, Same Sex Marriage Rights.