Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

letter from 44 conservative leaders disproving Romney "enforced the law" by imposing gay "marriage"
MassResistance.com ^ | December 20, 2006

Posted on 03/11/2012 2:50:14 PM PDT by SoConPubbie

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders (This letter was hand-delivered to the Governorfs staff on Dec. 20, 2006.) December 20, 2006 The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133 Dear Governor Romney: You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual gmarriageh licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law. As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy: "All causes of marriagecshall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.) In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution: g[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67) Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion. Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law). Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history. The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions: 2 "[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.) The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges: "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.) In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways. "The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.) We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges: "All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.) We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit: "The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618) We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion." As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor: "The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)." 3 "The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992) We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis) We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute: gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief." In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it. We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation: "But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916) Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way. We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign. This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48. In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore: 4 1. The marriage statute is still in effect. 2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages. We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793) You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony. Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light. We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold. . We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law. . We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony. . We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that: . they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and . as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and . therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations . unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and . will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum). 5 Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government. Signed, Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation *Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign *Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++ *Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act Linda Harvey, Mission America Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries Phil Lawler, Catholic World News Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family *Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National) Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee *John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California Brian Camenker, MassResistance Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute James Hartline, The Hartline Report Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts *Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations. *Signed after December 20, 2006. ++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; romney

1 posted on 03/11/2012 2:50:24 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Oops, sorry about no paragraphs, let me fix that.


2 posted on 03/11/2012 2:51:11 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

html is your friend


3 posted on 03/11/2012 2:52:12 PM PDT by estrogen (don't let the media pick our candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

html is your friend


4 posted on 03/11/2012 2:52:21 PM PDT by estrogen (don't let the media pick our candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Holy wall of text and title that doesn’t begin with a capital letter, Batman!


5 posted on 03/11/2012 2:52:47 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney
Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The State House
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

“All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:

“[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.” (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to “execute the law.” Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judges’ opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the court’s opinion was a “law” and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued - with no legal authority — the first “homosexual marriage” licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)

In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts’ system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

“The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:

“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved ... shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature...” (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)

We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:

“The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone.” (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)

We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison’s words in 1767: “laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will” and “[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.’ “ As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts “ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion.”

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

“The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties” (mandamus) “is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor).”

“The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government.” (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We also note this ruling in 1969: “an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is “not only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.” (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:

“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”

In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:

“But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor.” (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)

Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from “husband” and “wife,” to “Partner A” and “Partner B.” Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court’s admission that the statute prohibits “homosexual marriage,” and the Constitution’s statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 §48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by “marrying” out-of-state homosexual couples – also a crime under c. 207 §48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must “be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation.” (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, “So help me, God.” Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage — knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently — in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

- We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the “Supreme Executive Magistrate” to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

- We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury — a felony.

- We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

* they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
* as a citizens’ constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
* therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
* unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
* will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.
Signed,

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act
Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman’s Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O’Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parents’ Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse
Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006

++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate


6 posted on 03/11/2012 3:05:46 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of time; ...

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney
Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The State House
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

“All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:

“[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.” (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to “execute the law.” Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judges’ opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the court’s opinion was a “law” and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued - with no legal authority — the first “homosexual marriage” licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)

In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts’ system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

“The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:

“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved ... shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature...” (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)

We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:

“The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone.” (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)

We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison’s words in 1767: “laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will” and “[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.’ “ As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts “ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion.”

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

“The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties” (mandamus) “is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor).”

“The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government.” (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We also note this ruling in 1969: “an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is “not only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.” (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:

“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”

In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:

“But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor.” (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)

Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from “husband” and “wife,” to “Partner A” and “Partner B.” Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court’s admission that the statute prohibits “homosexual marriage,” and the Constitution’s statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 §48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by “marrying” out-of-state homosexual couples – also a crime under c. 207 §48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must “be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation.” (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, “So help me, God.” Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage — knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently — in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

- We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the “Supreme Executive Magistrate” to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

- We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury — a felony.

- We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

* they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
* as a citizens’ constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
* therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
* unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
* will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.
Signed,

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act
Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman’s Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O’Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parents’ Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse
Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006

++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate


7 posted on 03/11/2012 3:07:02 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses

Bump!


8 posted on 03/11/2012 3:25:43 PM PDT by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

A Hydra Is Not The Mourning After Pill
OBMACARE Must Be Destroyed By A Firebrand
by L.J .Keslin www.theusmat.com

Of the three GOP candidates remaining opposing Mitt Romney for the presidency Newt Gingrich , Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Only one has had the courage to take on a what they call a third rail issue...Eugenics... and has had his chacter asassinated for it... He’s been characterized as a women hater ,, a religious nut, a one trick pony, .... pummeled from both sides and that is Rick Santorum ,,,,What’s really in Obamacare and

What is Eugenics....? It’s control.... and all that goes with it. Two groups late in the last century led in Eugenic development. The Nazis and the Communists. Few know or remember how the Nazis began. First citing “health risk” “nicht rauchen” baning cigarette smoking, Then terminating Down Syndrome children, and then on to mentally defective children and adults,. then on to besides murdering opponents, races. All done to make the German Reich healthy and last a thousand years.

Eugenics put in common words is this :You surrender your individuality to the group to advance the greater good of the group. If your unhealthy or too old and you can’t work for the greater good of the group any more, you are disposed of in the way the group decides. If there are too many people , the group decides no more babiys, kill them. Now lets take the word”group” and change it for the word “ state”. That is what’s in Obamacare which is deceptively titled “The Affordable Health Care Act”

.So you go to the MSM (Main Stream Media) the so called “gate keepers” for information about these things and you find closed gates . Either it’s not mentioned at all , or downplayed, and given Obamacom talking point excuses for their reason. An example of this is how the sorcerers in the media were allowed to conjure Eugenics which is an integral part of Obama/Romneycare known as the Affordable Health Care Act magically reduce a 2000 page Hydra , a nine headed venomous snake that must be slain by a firebrand ,and morph it into the mourning after pill and a “womans health care issue.” .
The “gatekeepers” never called it out for what it is ..Obama and his Demo-com HHS department Secretary Selbelius who is a CINO (Catholic In Name Only and should be excommunicated period) .

Yet Obamacom tzars who hail from that foreign land, the deep swamp of Acadamica are all preaching the utopian wonders of Eugenics. Why it’s the final solution (remember him ?) population control. Which is part of the Obamacare package. Obamacomms are on record and actually called it population control and demanded Catholic bishops support it.

Their statements are out there .But not offered by the so called gate-keepers but by the AM the alternate media, meaning radio talk shows like Limbaugh’s and websites like Britebart’s Government . Places Obama wants to shut down and will once re-elected .

Another issue is its constitutionality imposing a current government position on religious groups. And BTW (by the way) one group has been excluded in the “Affordable Health Care Act” for religious reasons ...the Amish....Again silence from MSM

.Demanding changes of acceptance in what was traditional core cultural values held by religious groups and advancing eugenics meaning infantacide and condeming seniors to soylent green centers certainly does have a place in the political discussion.

Once upon a time there were Democrat voices who would warn when pitfalls of bad legislation appeared. Saddly there are no longer any independent voices in todays Democrat Party. Liberal watch dogs like Proxmire or Moynihan are gone . A liberal would be screaming about the benefits from private job creation projects like an iron mine in Wisconsin for a desperate area in need of jobs or the Keystone pipeline transfering oil from Canada to American refineries and support them.

A socialist or communist because of a political agenda,would reject them and they have. In each case the US Senate, and the Wisconsin state (hate the governor) senate dominated by agenda driven democrats killed both projects .They’re not just Democrats but hyphenated Demo-Coms placing their political agenda above the common good.

The Keystone pipeline and iron mine decisions which would have provided employment to thousands and reduced gas prices. Their rejection by the demo-coms should send a signal to the Republican bleeding heart establishment . “Bi-partisanship” doesn’t exist with socialists and to its leading presidential candidate ,Mitt Romney. Mr Romney should start realizing Obama is a “socialist”.. Everyone including the monthly liberal magazine Newsweek knows he is but Mr Romney just can’t seem to get around to saying it .

Where the Santorum campaign failed was to allow the media to describe the issue and reduce it into popping a pill. Furthurmore in Ohio’s case you had some local major market so called “conservative” talk show hosts ridiculing Santorum on this issue not just the drummers (as in venomous snake oil hustlers) on MSM.

Whether Santorum decides to shy away from this issue or re-frame it is up to him and his advisors. But he should be encouraged to re-adjust the focus. One way the Catholic bishops can help is use the mechanisms they have to do so...After all they have shut down parishes which retained the latin mass but can’t speakout and act on this despicable movement ? Particularly when that is being shoved on religious groups by the Demo-Coms . Especially when they’re ignoring constitutional rights...LJK.


9 posted on 03/11/2012 3:31:43 PM PDT by mosesdapoet ("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; narses
thank you, for the formatting. :-)

10 posted on 03/11/2012 4:14:15 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Simple: Kill the terrorists, Protect (all) the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Rmoney bump


11 posted on 03/13/2012 7:46:26 PM PDT by Dajjal ("I'm not concerned about the very poor." -- severely conservative Mitt Rmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson