Could Mitt Romney Have Stopped Gay Marriage?

Morley Institute for Church and Culture ^ | 01/04/2007 | Deal W. Hudson

[Gelato]

You don't seem to understand that all three branches of government are entitled to review the Constitution and act accordingly.

That's how "supremacy" is held in check. No branch is "supreme."

[Gelato]

"By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience."

Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.

This same principle applies, I'm sure you will agree, to the executives of the several states.

[Obilisk18]

"I believe, though don't quote me on this, that the Catholic Charities, which had previously consented to place children in same-sex homes, changed that policy, at which point lawsuit was brought against them for violation of Massachusett's anti-discrimination laws. At which point I assume the judiciary ruled that they had indeed violated these laws.
Can you show me the MA law that forces men and women of conscience to violate their closely-held beliefs if they want to help the weakest and neediest among us?


Or is this just more judicial tyranny, enforced by Mitt Romney's executive branch?"

No, no I can't. You're missing the point and you continually miss the point. I suspect it's deliberate. You're continually putting forth arguments that go something like this "what an awful, absurd usurpation of judicial power". I agree. Both of these are awful, absurd usurpations. But then you're somehow, by some rhetorical trick as yet unknown, extending that to mean that the decision is void. You're using the exact same logical inanities that liberals continually use to justify there lovely "living constitutionalism". You don't like a result, therefore it's not allowed. Do you accept judicial review? Do you accept the principle that courts can overturn "unconstitutional laws"? Do you accept the principle that the Supreme can interpret the meaning of statutes? Because, if so it seems to me that your overall boils down to: "the Court's must overturn unconstitutional laws, and interpret statutes, but only when they're laws I believe are unconstitutional, and only when they're statutes that advance me cause". Again, this is precisely the logic that dovetails into living constitutionalism. Either the Courts have the power to interpet legislation, or they do not. They cannot, by any reasonable formulation, only interpret legislation that aid your cause.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I don't want wishy-washy when we are fighting a WOT... sorry.

[Obilisk18]

"You don't seem to understand that all three branches of government are entitled to review the Constitution and act accordingly.
That's how "supremacy" is held in check. No branch is "supreme.""

You're talking about departmentalism. I agree, as I'm a departmentalist. But we're in the extreme minority and I don't use that particular issue as a litmus test for candidates. If so, I'd be left between a choice of Alan Keyes and Alan Keyes.

[Gelato]

You're talking about departmentalism. I agree, as I'm a departmentalist. But we're in the extreme minority and I don't use that particular issue as a litmus test for candidates.

Well, we're never going to get something we don't ask for. Only after trying and failing to attain the ideal can we excuse settling for less.

If so, I'd be left between a choice of Alan Keyes and Alan Keyes.

I could live with that.

[Obilisk18]

"You're talking about departmentalism. I agree, as I'm a departmentalist. But we're in the extreme minority and I don't use that particular issue as a litmus test for candidates.
Well, we're never going to get something we don't ask for. Only after trying and failing to attain the ideal can we excuse settling for less.

If so, I'd be left between a choice of Alan Keyes and Alan Keyes.

I could live with that."

I don't tilt at windmills. I have every intention of, if I eventually become a judge, putting my judicial philosophy into action. But when 98% of the public disagrees with me on an issue, I have no choice but to win what small victories I can. And that does not mean attempting to derail a presidential candidate because he abides the same doctrine every other presidential candidate holds. That's not principle, it's insanity.

[EternalVigilance]

No, no I can't.

Just as I suspected.

You're missing the point and you continually miss the point. I suspect it's deliberate.

I've stayed very much on point throughout this conversation.

You're continually putting forth arguments that go something like this "what an awful, absurd usurpation of judicial power". I agree. Both of these are awful, absurd usurpations.

Glad to hear it.

But then you're somehow, by some rhetorical trick as yet unknown, extending that to mean that the decision is void. You're using the exact same logical inanities that liberals continually use to justify there lovely "living constitutionalism". You don't like a result, therefore it's not allowed.

Wrong. I'm saying that when a court makes an unconstitutional ruling, the executive and the legislative branches have a sworn duty to, first, interpret the Constitution, and then check the judicial branch by every means available to them. Not turn around and use their power to enforce unconstitutional edicts, as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have done in very important cases in the recent past.

Do you accept judicial review?

Of course I do. I also accept "executive and legislative review." That's the point.

Do you accept the principle that courts can overturn "unconstitutional laws"?

Of course. But that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is the fact that we have a passel of judges who have been legislating from the bench, ignoring the clear words of our constitutions, the intent of the framers, bypassing the plain meanings of our laws, and dreaming up nonexistent emanations and penumbras from the bowels of their liberal hearts.

Do you accept the principle that the Supreme can interpret the meaning of statutes?

That's their job.

Because, if so it seems to me that your overall boils down to: "the Court's must overturn unconstitutional laws, and interpret statutes, but only when they're laws I believe are unconstitutional, and only when they're statutes that advance me cause".

I believe no such thing. Nice try.

Again, this is precisely the logic that dovetails into living constitutionalism. Either the Courts have the power to interpet legislation, or they do not. They cannot, by any reasonable formulation, only interpret legislation that aid your cause.

Again, you're just plain wrong, and attribute to me ideas that I don't hold.

[EternalVigilance]

I don't tilt at windmills.

Don Quixote was a fictional character, one who saw imaginary monsters. The liberal activist judiciary is quite real, as is the damage they are doing to the sovereignty of the American people and our precious institutions. This real monster is in the process of eating us all, and is systematically destroying our inalienable, God-given rights to life, liberty and private property.

Our children and grandchildren will not enjoy the life we and our forebears have enjoyed if we don't act to reverse it.

In fact, nearly 50 million unborn Americans have already died at their hands.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[EternalVigilance]

And that does not mean attempting to derail a presidential candidate because he abides the same doctrine every other presidential candidate holds.

It isn't as if politicians like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are simply "abiding" anything. They are actively helping the enemies of our republican form of government. Their test came, and they failed it miserably. For that, you want to reward them, or at the very least, not hold them at all accountable for that failure. To use your phrase: "That's not principle, it's insanity."

[Gelato]

I have every intention of, if I eventually become a judge, putting my judicial philosophy into action.

And I'll continue to focus on electing legislators and executives to hold those philosophies in check, so that the Constitution, not a person's philosophy, rules this country.

In fact, that's where the solution of the problem of judicial supremacy lies. As the Mitt Romney example illustrates, the courts cannot get away with usurping power, unless folks like him allow it. That ultimately means the burden lies with we, the people, to seek out executives and legislators who understand the separation of powers.

I'm not so cynical as to believe our nation has forever lost that character and will.

And that does not mean attempting to derail a presidential candidate because he abides the same doctrine every other presidential candidate holds. That's not principle, it's insanity.

Giving up on our future without a fight is what's insane--not to mention unworthy of our heritage. Let's not be willing to wave the white flag until no choice indeed presents itself.

[EternalVigilance]

ping

[Obilisk18]

I'm going to try to be a liberal for a second. Hold on, it takes some psychological backflips. Ok, so I'm going to rephrase the following statement in liberalese.

"Of course. But that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is the fact that we have a passel of judges who have been legislating from the bench, ignoring the clear words of our constitutions, the intent of the framers, bypassing the plain meanings of our laws, and dreaming up nonexistent emanations and penumbras from the bowels of their liberal hearts."

Of course. But that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is that fact that we have a passel of judges who have been ignoring the freedom's that are uniquely our heritage and the contemporary content of fairness and fraternity, by employing outmoded constitutional approaches that insist that words have meaning.

Would you, I wonder, accept this explanation as a legitimate basis for liberals to ignore rulings and use their executive and legislative authority to check the judiciary? Of course not. Why? Because you think your method of constitutional exegesis, originalism, is valid while living constitutionalism is not. But your insistence on departmentalism cannot logically apply only when the rulings are handed down by liberal courts. I'm perfectly fine with departmentalism as a governing philosophy. If you accept departmentalism whole hog, then I praise you. But it's simply ridiculous to assert that the judiciary can only be reviewed by originalists, because they're right and living constitutionalists are wrong.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy left today to try to decipher that.