Posted on 08/03/2007 9:36:12 PM PDT by bubman
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
This use to be a place where conservatives and Republicans could criticize the liberals and Democrats and celebrate our own. When did FreeRepublic became a place for conservatives to eat our own. Its shameful some of the things people are saying about Gov. Romney. How are we going to beat Hillary if our candidate is so beaten up in the process by our own team. Wake up!
So well said! And what's worse is some of Mitt's strongest detractors support candidates who are unelectable or not even running (and I don't mean Thompson supporters). So they're beating up a candiate who can win, while promoting a candidate who can't.
"Romney was undeniably impressive. He knows how to stand firm and defend his position. I would love for him to win the nomination and do to Hillary what he did to Jan. Come on everyone, wouldn’t you just love to see that?"
He did do well, didn't he? : ) And yes, many of us would love to see him do to Hillary what he did to Jan!
Every actually read it?
The last, and most important, clause:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." - Marbury vs. Madison
What, get snippy and refuse to come back?
Remember that line when you are sitting waaaaay up in the bleacher seats of Mit Romney's 2009 inaugural parade. Romney is easily the smartest of all the candidates coupled with amazing organizational abilities.
Now go read Article III of the Constitution so you can understand the role of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
Not only have I read Marbury v. Madison, but unlike you, I understand it. You cite a Supreme Court decision which declares the intent and purpose of the Constitution, but claim the Supreme Court doesn’t have the “supreme” authority to do so. Your position is illogical. Marbury is authoritative and dispositive for the very reason the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court pursuant to the authority set forth in the Constitution.
Now stop spouting ignorant positions unsupported by the Constitution.
For getting into Mitt's face over religion? Sorry, but in my book that is going way over the line.
No offense, PJ--I'm a huge fan of your PJ Comix--but I know a helluvalot about Romney. I shouldn't have said he's going nowhere, and frankly am not sure WHY I said that. In fact, I fear he's going somewhere, but if anyone thinks he's the man to defeat HRC or Edwards, they're nuts.
Which is starting to piss me off bigtime. I can't believe in this day and age that someone's religious beliefs are an issue in a presidential campaign. You don't agree with Mormonism? Fine. Neither do I but that is a PERSONAL thing. It should have NO PART in a person't qualifications for the presidency or any other office. I've seen some really ugly things hurled at Mitt because he is a Mormon. I wonder if those hurling such charges would also refuse the services of Mormon paramedics, rescue workers, soldiers, etc..
Having said that, I see no compelling reason to support him.
Mitt Romney is going to have to “take his gloves off” again after Fred Thompson and/or Newt Gingrich officially enter the ‘08 Presidential race and start attacking Mitt and all of the other GOP Presidential candidates on a variety of issues! I also wouldn’t be surprised if any of the second tier GOP Presidential candidates seriously try to get some political traction going their way by also attacking both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues starting with this Sunday’s debate.
Now, where in the Constitution does it say that the courts are superior to the executive branch, or that the executive doesn't have a duty to interpret and enforce the Constitution as he has sworn to do?
Ah. Pony up ten grand, and you’ve bought your way out of RomneyCare.
What a joke.
More Pro-Gay Romney advocacy where he’s speaking on behalf of traditional marriage, slamming the mass legislature and judiciary, and speaking on behalf of the people being allowed to vote on gay marriage. And also advocating for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
But we all know that he was working double top secret agent for the gay mafia, don’t we, EV!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXyDxMKv1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjC4lQ90Sas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUE7VHeaTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVrZf0bWobw
Personally, I've consistently argued that Romney isn't nearly Mormon enough, and that his record is extremely liberal.
I cannot remember a time on this forum when I've been so accused. If it happened before it was a long while ago. Look for it and you'll find it. But it was posted two or three months ago, so it will take you some time. If you begin now, you might find it by sunrise. : )
I also suggest you read Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers to understand the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the intent and purpose of the Constitution. Thus, Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 78:
“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
Nothing secret about it. He very publicly sought and gained the support of the radical gay activists for years, and he gave them more than they ever dreamed possible as Governor. That record is crystal clear to anyone who doesn't have their eyes purposely closed.
See post #117 and educate yourself.
Read Article III and educate yourself.
You obviously have no formal legal education because you wouldn’t be spouting such ignorant drivel.
Sorry. It’s not my job to document your specious claim. That’s your responsibility.
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.