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 ...
I aggree that often in dealing with the evil controlling another country that it must be destroyed. But I was responding to her post in reference to a political race here in America and how to deal with your opponent on the left. I think it is way off base for that type of battle.
nobody is talking about backing down but we need to be motivated by a good spirit and in that there is a great strength to fight the good fight. Bloodsport? Maybe that’s the way the left looks at it but not conservatives.
You forget when you go down that road it is everything across the board that would be banned drinking, smoking, sex out side of marriage etc.
Our best course is to put the right people on the Supreme court so that once the this abortion law is revoked it can never rise again!
I thought her post referred back to one about Hezbollah.
What, exactly did Mickelson say to invite that comment? That the LDS church DOES have an anti-abortion stance, and Mitt said that's untrue?
That’s why the left wins and why they will win in 2008.
Politics is war. It is a war of ideology. Does the most deserving candidate always win? Why not? Why haven’t the good second tier candidates broken 5%? The most efficient, aggressive, and yes sometimes inspiring candidate wins but that person has to be able to be ruthless when necessary. Too much severity is cruelty but excessive mercy is weakness. Balance is everything. The way a candidate runs a campaign is a good test as to how he will run the nation.
Let me explain why Jan Michelson and others feels the way he does.
What people believe about God is critical to how things play out in the real world; i.e. politics.
For example, Hitler had a totally corrupt theology...it amounted to a belief in ancient superstitions and occultic garbage. That really mattered for millions of people, didn’t it?
Clinton, while he loved to carry around his huge Bible for purposes of photo ops, didn’t seem to pay much attention to anything written in it, did he? Did that matter politically?
My first warnings about Clinton were really when he gave his speech to the ‘92 Democratic Convention. Why did I go tell everybody I knew that Clinton was a danger to our Republic? What gave him away to me as a totally corrupt person? It was because I heard him, in that speech, totally twist and misquote scripture...the whole theme of it was ‘A NEW COVENENT’!! He was a shameless blasphemer and liar in my eyes henceforth. Was I right?
Yes, my friend, what people believe about God and the Bible is important to the political future of the world and our FRee Republic.
The speech you cite, especially taken in the context of actual history that followed 1857, supports my case, not yours.
Lincoln also cites another case that proves your all-encompassing claim that no executive has dared defy the Supreme Court and actually decide constitutionality for himself.
Lincoln:
Why this same Supreme court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but Gen. Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it ." But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me."
I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear Gen. Jackson further—
"If the opinion of the Supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others."
Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud Gen. Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to his mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.
I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States.
proves = disproves
“I think Mitt’s impressive. I know next to nothing about the Mormon Church. Somebody, please tell me why it makes any more difference that he’s a Mormon than a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian or whatever. I hate to be naive, but I don’t understand.”
The substantive issues are:
1) what kinds of decision making processes are altered at the presidential level by the fact that Mormon males believe they will become God’s with their own planets. Harry Reid’s mental state would be a prime example of what can happen.
2) many of us believe that at best Joseph Smith rose to the level of a two bit con artist not worthy of a carnival fortune telling act. Since these founding events are less than two hundred years old, and the documentation dense, it calls into question a presidential candidate’s powers of judgement if they are to hold such a character in esteem, much less to the point of divinity. Ask yourself if you would vote for a Koresh follower for president.
3) many Mormon doctrines will impinge on common politics. For example, will Romney be called on to defend the notion that American Indians (and Mexicans for that matter) are descendants of a lost tribe of Jews who came here in 600BC. That alone will be worthy of months of nonsensical debate.
4) If Joseph Smith was a huckster, will Romney be forced to lie during his presidency in order to maintain the facade, making him “by definition” slick.
Many other issues arise at the presidential level that do not appear even up to the level of governorship. I have many times been called a bigot for stating these objections, but as someone who lives in a state with a high Mormon concentration, I have seen many problems arise in the political and business sphere that gives me great pause. Hope that is a start towards explaining why some of us take this issue so seriously, though it is only a thin slice of the problems that present themselves with taking Mitt seriously - before we even get to his politics.
Basically, FC is advocating the Roman’s view of Christians in the 2nd century.
well, that’s fine but it’s not a bloodsport as you referred to it. We are lead by a nobler motive than the left.
Oh...I get it.
When he's talking "political" we should ignore or just "understand" it's just politics. ...BUT, his new and improved "presidential platform" is moral. Sure..I do get it now.
Flip
What a tangled web we weave...........
Flop.
All Freedom loving and Pro-Life Mitt Sympathizers remember this link if Rudy wins the nomination and he is shut out because of religion. All Mitt needs is over 200,000 internet votes to guarantee a spot on Unity 2008 ticket. Here’s hoping for a Mitt/Zell Miller or Lieberman 2008 ticket!
Yes and Jan came down quite hard on Ed Failor awhile back for not inviting Rep. Paul to the Iowa Taxpayers Group. No mind, Dr. Paul drew more than the 6 other candidates (Mitt included) combined.
The Suit messed up on this one. His camp can spin it however they want, he dropped the ball
It remains to be seen if those Ron Paul people are bussed in for the event or Democrats or actual Iowa Republicans... cause only THOSE can vote next Saturday... and if he can get 2000+ he will be going somewhere... if he can’t... well...
It is why the only rational choice is Ron Paul.
As a Veteran it is my DUTY to support Ron Paul.
If you are a Veteran and disagee, let us reason together.
I would say a most emphatic “yes”. But, in all honesty, having a beer and killing a baby is comparing apples and oranges.
You are stuck on stupid. Each branch of the government derives its powers from the text of the Constitution.
Article III of the Constitution creates and empowers the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and declare federal and state legislation to either be constitutional or unconstitutional when the constitutionality of such legislation is challenged.
There is no text in the Constitution that empowers the President to repudiate pronouncements made by the Supreme Court.
As I previously stated (and which you ignored), your specious analysis is completely undermined by enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. If your argument had ANY weight, these Amendments would have been completely unnecessary if the President had the Constitutional authority to repudiate pronouncements made by the Supreme Court.
Imagine the anarchy created by your position and the lack of certainty and confidence it would engender in the government.
For example: Suppose in 2000 Clinton had declared the Supreme Court pronouncement favoring Bush to be in violation of the Constitution and signed an executive order requiring each ballot in Florida to be counted in direct contravention of the decision reached by the Supreme Court. Such action would create anarchy and that is what you would create by implementing what you advocate.
As I have previously stated, it is obvious you have no formal legal education. You may be able to bamboozle some Freepers with your pseudo-legal babble, but not me or anyone else who has an understanding of Constitutional Law. Now stop making a fool of yourself.
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.