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 ...
As an obvious judicial supremacist, you fit well in the Romney camp. He’s one of the all-time champs.
If a court makes an obviously unconstitutional decision, whose responsibility is it to rein them in in your world? Have you ever heard the words “checks and balances”?
The bottom line here is that a lot of the antagonism against Romney has to do with his Mormonism. If you don’t believe me then check out the posts by racebannon. He is absolutely OBSESSED about Mormonism. When Mitt becomes the nominee, we will also see similar Mormon bashing by the Democrats. It will be ugly.
>>>Ah. Pony up ten grand, and you’ve bought your way out of RomneyCare. What a joke.<<<
So once more I point out a blatant fallacy of yours, and you call it a joke, eh? Is that the strategy? Just paint little smiley faces and everything goes away!! :)
But the fact remains that should you so choose, that $10,000 and all derived interest thereof is in an account in your possession. Romney’s plan does, however, allow the state to extract payment for services rendered from that account. I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to that.
Or perhaps you’ve skipped out on your healthcare bills and refused to pay for services rendered? In any other line of work, that’s called theft of services and is punishable by law.
But once more, I give you the chance, and you weasel out of commenting on what you’d call government mandates on healthcare workers to provide services with zero compensation. So from here on out, you’ve tacitly accepted the label of being pro-slave labor.
Not quite the lover of the Constitution you claim you are, methinks.
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
A) How can you "preserve, protect, and defend" something you have no ability or authority to interpret?
B) What if the force "destroying or attacking" the Constitution resides in one of the other two branches of government? What is a chief executive to do in such a case so as to uphold his sworn oath?
C) Can you show me the law or constitutional provision that authorized Mitt Romney to implement gay marriage?
"Judy Dushku: In the early 90s, our feminist newspaper Exponent II, did a theme issue about Mormonism and abortion. X said she’d like to write a piece describing her experience. We agreed to publish her story anonymously because we knew her and knew about the ordeal.
Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.
And he said – Yes, come to my office.
I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts."
Your response is what I predicted. Completely and utterly devoid of any substantive analysis of the actual text of the Constitution or constitutional jurisprudence.
And your response reflects a complete lack of understanding of the separation of powers enunciated in the Constitution for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government and how the authority of each acts as a check and balance against the other branches. The “checks and balances” derives from the express authority granted to each branch, not by the willy nilly decision of a President not to follow a decision rendered by the Supreme Court. In the entire history of the United States from 1787 when the Constitution was ratified until today, can you cite one single instance when the President has declared that he will not follow a decision rendered by the Supreme Court? That answer would be none.
Not only is it apparent you do not possess any formal legal education, but it is also apparent you probably didn’t do very well in your high school American government class.
Well, thanks.
I’ll bet you a buck you can’t get a single LDS leader, or even Mitt Romney himself, to back up that story.
Umm...I don't agree with the tenets of Mormonism but when was the last time you ever heard of Mormons cutting off people's heads or acting as suicide bombers? I've seen Mormons and although I can't figure out how they can refrain from coffee (typing this as I am sipping my Java) and alcohol, they cause no one any harm. So when you post that you would have a hard time supporting the candidacy of someone because of his Mormonism, ask yourself if you would turn down the services of a Mormon paramedic, cop, or refuse to be defended by Mormon soldiers and marines.
Plus one of the top business executives in the country. But that won't matter to those who are OBSESSED about Mormonism. They just can't get past that. Amazing especially in light of the fact that Mormons are harming NO ONE. Sorry, but I have never heard of Mormons chopping off people's heads or acting as suicide bombers. However, if you listen to the Mormon bashers, they are just as evil as the militant Muslims.
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." — Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." — Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." — Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." — Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.
Shameful and FRIGHTENING. Unbelievable the amount of hatred directed towards Mormons here. Some posters are OBSESSED with Mormonism and just can't get past it.
Do you find that person to be a credible source?
Are you ever going to get around to acknowledging the actual position of the LDS church that I posted some hours ago?
I don't dispute that at all. I've commented on a couple of those threads, and the Mormon-bashers are scary.
I just don't think Romney's going to be able to rise above that issue, because it's the ONLY thing people are going to be talking about. At this point, it's the only thing that distinguishes him from the pack. I know people don't want to hear this, but just another white guy talking about being pro-life and for gun rights ain't gonna do it after 8 years of a Republican president.
The reason I think Thompson CAN win (not the same as why I think he SHOULD win) is that his personality can cut through a lot of the bull the MSM and DNC (but I repeat myself...) will toss at him. Romney just never impressed me during his tenure as my governor.
READ THE CONSTITUTION. It will really help you instead of cutting and pasting quotes.
If the justices of the Supreme Court are actually “destroying or attacking” the Constitution, the Constitution actually provides for their removal through articles of impeachment by the Legislative branch. In fact, federal judges have been removed a number of times through this process.
Your advocacy of the President willy nilly refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court’s decisions is found NOWHERE in the actual text of the Constutiton or ANYWHERE in constitutional jurisprudence.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. — Thomas Jefferson 1819.
President Jefferson had it figured out 188 years ago.
What isn't found in the Constitution is a Judicial Branch that reigns supreme over the other two branches, or that is an oligarchy that feels free to ignore the Constitution, or make it say what it doesn't say.
If you think the Constitution doesn’t effectively address this issue, the remedy is to amend it, not violate it.
You have no Constitutional authority for your bizarre position.
As I stated above, in the entire history of the United States from 1787 when the Constitution was ratified until today, there is not one single instance when the President declared that he would not follow a decision rendered by the Supreme Court. The obvious reason: Because he has no Constitutional authority to do so.
Read Article III and educate yourself.
I’m tired of arguing something so patently obvious.
But, I'll ask one more before I hit the sack for the evening anyway:
A couple of years ago a mere probate judge in Florida, Judge Greer, not only authorized but demanded the death of one Terry Schiavo.
The chief executive of that state, Jeb Bush, stood by helplessly as she was cruelly dehydrated to death, even though Florida's constitution, in Article One, Section Two, explicitly forbids it.
Should he have done so, or should he have used his executive power to preserve and protect innocent human life?
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.