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 ...
A lot of people said that about Catholics before JFK was elected. And the Dems have a woman and a Black on their list, neither of which have ever been elected before.
Do you have any qualms about electing either one of them?
I absolutely do not want censor!
I am calling for able people to make their judgement about whether a candidate is being treated fairly especially about his beliefs. Just like others have who have said they will not vote for a nominee if they find his religion distasteful, I am pointing to the reality of the other side of the coin which is millions of Mormons will take umbrage with that kind of thinking or treatment.
Yep, we Mormons who are conservative and pro-life are not going to be infinitely patient. How do you deal with that sentiment? You are a smart guy. You tell me.
“I think it doesn’t come NEAR approaching 10 to 20%. Religion is not a major issue with most voters today.”
I guess we are about to find out if you are right. If 4% stay home, the game is over with Hillary. But I guess it is more important to debate seer stones and $3 bills for the next 12 months.
“I think it doesn’t come NEAR approaching 10 to 20%. Religion is not a major issue with most voters today.
I agree - for “most voters”
I disagree, for evangelicals who make up th the religious
right.
There, 10% not voting for a mormon is not far from the
truth.
“I would never vote Mormon at the presidential level,”
[A lot of people said that about Catholics before JFK was elected. ]
Yes, and they would have been right if Jack Kennedy was anything but a half ass Catholic. Every Pope in my lifetime has come out against nigh every war we’ve been in. Are you saying that a Catholic who believes the Pope is infallible would not be a problem at the Presidential level given their opposition to war of any kind? That’s pretty darn lame.
[And the Dems have a woman and a Black on their list, neither of which have ever been elected before.
Do you have any qualms about electing either one of them?]
I sure do have qualms, don’t you? The lady is a commie who uses her Methodism as a false shield. The black is a flaming socialist who uses his race as a sob story. Now I know you are trying to bait me into being a Troglodyte racist/misogynist, because that’s about all you guys have the brainpower to do (besides braying the term bigot to death).
But I was very supportive of a Condi Rice presidency, a religious black woman. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That is incorrect. Reagan was on WOC in Davenport before moving to WHO.
I have now provided you with both the actual text of the Constitution and several citations/quotes from Constitutional jurisprudence which clearly state that it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret 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.”
Presidential Oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Senate Oath
Etc. The President and the Congress have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This requires interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution.
Remember also that the Congress can withdraw jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court; the Congress defines much of the Supreme Courts right to hear cases at all.
Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
So don’t go too far with your thinking that the Supreme Court has sole responsibility or authority in the area of Constitutional interpretation.
As you can see the Congress has the duty to interpret and uphold the U.S. Constitution and has the power to regulate the Courts authority. Further, the President, if he disagrees strongly enough with the Court can simply ignore a Court holding and not enforce the holding (or continue to enforce the law the Court opposes). The Court has no power to enforce it’s decisions except through the other branches of the government.
If you’re arguing that the woman and the Black Dems are unacceptable because of their political positions, then I can agree about that. But why don’t you judge a Mormon on the same grounds?
You’d prefer a “commie” or a “socialist” to a Mormon?
The President and the Congress have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This requires interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution.
Nice claim in the second sentence above, Greg F. Where in the Constitution does it state that? Where is the constitutional jurisprudence to support your claim? Please cite me the case law that supports your position. The respective oaths of the President and Senate state nothing about conferring power upon them to interpret the Constitution.
Conversely, the text of the Constitution expressly confers "judicial power" in the Supreme Court (By the way, "supreme" is defined as "greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant") to decide ALL cases arising under the Constitution.
Let me educate you with another citation/quote. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988), Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, stated, citing Marbury:
That the task of interpreting the great, sweeping clauses of the Constitution ultimately falls to us has been for some time an accepted principle of American jurisprudence. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is").
Did you not read my last post and the case citations? As recently as last term, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Like Eternal Vigilance, you express your own asinine opinion without citation to any authority. You fabricate out of whole cloth this notion that the President and the Senate have the authority to "interpret" the Constitution.
Like EV, I notice you didn't address my points regarding the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments or Clinton refusing to follow the Bush v. Gore decision from 2000 and issuing an executive order to count all the votes. The practical consequences of your asinine assertion results in chaos and anarchy.
Stop embarrassing yourself like EV with your inane pseudo-legal arguments. Anybody with a formal legal education would not make the claims EV and you do. That is unless you obtained a law degree from some mail order company.
ping to post #289
Thank you for the ping. I think it’s time for me to get back on the porch and stay out of the way of the big dogs.
So, I guess I don’t understand what you mean by the difference in lying and deceiving. You say some call it lying, but then you also say it’s just deceit.
Please help me understand the difference? But at the very least, you call it mischaracterizing repeatedly your words. How did I mischaracterize and show the "real spirit" in me by taking you at your word. If I'm way off, help me see the error of reading your post, and I will grovel at your feet in apologetic tones. After all, I am an apologetic. ;-)
“The attacks that I’ve examined have not held up. They are beginning to seem mean-spirited.”
Beginning? It’s the same old recycled garbage over and over and over. Mitt Romney is a fine man with a decent family. It’s hard to take but I am proud of Mitt Romney for his sacrifices and willingness to take all this abuse. What a man! Thanks for noticing that the bulk of the attacks are based on nothing real.
It's so sad to see this site sink to such a level where not only one, but multiple people are making the same stupid argument, simply because it allows accuse Mitt of "imposing" gay marriage on Massachusetts. These people don't think; they just reflexively attack.
Kudos to you for injecting some sense into this debate.
Ad Hominem attack. What is your legal education? My bet is that mine is far better; in fact from your post I would say you have no legal education at all. Understand that Constitutionally the Congress can completely remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases in an area making them, in a practical sense, the superior power in Constitutional law. As far as the 13th - 15th Amendments go, how do they remove the duty of Congress and President to protect the Constitution? I think no one is responding because they don’t understand the argument.
Do a thought experiment. What is the duty of President if the Supreme Court upholds a law that Americans are no longer entitled to free speech on about politics prior to an election? What is the duty of the Congress if the President jails people for speech and the Court upholds it?
SEe post 268. The idea that President and Congress have no right, duty or power to interpret the Constitution is wrong.
Oops, see post 287 responding to 268. I don’t know what others have said in this thread regarding the duties of Congress and President to the Constitution, but they do have the duty, the right and the power to interpret the Constitution and apply it. We’ve hurt our nation by allowing the President and Congress to ignore that duty. The Congress will actually, knowingly, pass Constitutionally suspect legislation with some Congressmen saying that the courts will strike it down IF they find it unconstitutional. That is very bad. It removes a bulwark against loss of our rights under our Constitution.
The asininity of your position is belied by the subsequent passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. If the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1862 law passed by Congress were sufficient to overrule Supreme Court precedent it would have been unnecessary to pass such Amendments. However, the Amendments were necessary and it is a further example of how checks and balances exist in the Constitution.
__________________________________________________________
Your argument is very weak. The Constitution binds all branches of the federal government, not just the Supreme Court. The Amendments bind the Congress and all future Congresses, the President and all future Presidents, and the Supreme Court and all future Supreme Courts. Not just the Supreme Court.
Did you or did you not write the following?
"That was because Mitt was taking a political moral position that disagreed with the LDS position. His presidential platform is morally in line with his church. There would be no need to consult them."
It was this post..that I responded to. And none other.
Maybe I could ask this question.
Is there a difference between a "political moral position" and a Mormon moral position?
Ok, I know I asked two questions......
Will you answer them?
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.