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 ...
The U.S. Marshalls fall under the Department of Justice’s jurisdiction, I think, which is under the President. The reason the Court didn’t issue further orders was that it would have precipitated a Constitutional crises that they would have lost in the sense of not being able to enforce their decision (since they do not have the power to enforce laws at all, but only to judge). There is no practical recourse but public opinion in support of the Court if a President does not enforce a ruling of the Court. Understand that I am not saying that this is something that should be done lightly, but if there is a rogue Supreme Court the President could well be in the right to protect the Constitution AGAINST the Court, and in my opinion could be duty bound by oath to do so.
Put another way, the entire idea of separation of powers is that each branch of government would enforce it’s powers against the other branches encroachment. A view that the Court must be obeyed in all circumstances would leave the President and Congress toothless in any conflict with the Court over their perogatives. The Congress can remove jurisdiction, the President can not enforce a holding, the court size can be expanded or shrunk, the Court can declare the actions of Congress or President unconstitutional. At that point it becomes a political conflict. Changing the court or expost removing jurisdiction could not be a sufficient remedy if the Court requires an irreversible action (say release of enemy spies in war). We see a lot of conflicts between President and Congress over authority, far less frequently with Congress and the Court or President and the Court, but it’s the same principle involved. If the Court loses credibility with the public it loses it’s only weapon against the other branches . . .
Do they have a Harvard mail order law degree? Because if you actually went to Harvard, you wouldn’t be spouting such asininity.
I’ve provided Supreme Court decisions covering the time period from 1803 with Marbury to 2006 with Cuno which unequivocally state that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. You do understand that the concepts of precedent and stare decisis are not flavors of ice cream or constellations, don’t you?
You, on the other hand, have cited no text from the Constitution nor identified any decisions which state that the President has constitutional authority to repudiate a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution and apply his own interpretation.
Packing the court or limiting its jurisdiction have nothing to do with what branch of the federal government possesses the authority to interpret the Constitution.
Bwahahaha! You make such a spectacle of yourself down there on the floor rolling around foaming at the mouth calling learned people idiots. Nice Mormon tactic there CUH.
Yes, Marshalls are part of the DoJ, and they are appointed by the president. However, one of their duties is to enforce court rulings, so they do act upon judges' orders.
The reason the Court didn’t issue further orders was that it would have precipitated a Constitutional crises that they would have lost in the sense of not being able to enforce their decision (since they do not have the power to enforce laws at all, but only to judge).
Yes, they probably thought there was a good chance Jackson would have interfered and stopped the Marshalls from enforcing their decision. However, we we'll never know know whether he actually would have done so, your speculation not withstanding.
There is no practical recourse but public opinion in support of the Court if a President does not enforce a ruling of the Court.
Sure there is: impeachment. Failure to enforce a court ruling is a clear violation of the President's executive duty.
Now it's probably doubtful that Congress would have impeached Jackson had he prevented the Marshalls from enforcing the court's ruling. His party controlled Congress, and it wasn't generally sympathetic to the plight of the Cherokee.
On the other hand, if Mitt Romney had refused to abide by the Massachussetts SCJ decision on gay marraige, there's absolutely no doubt the Democraticly controlled state legislature would have impeached him, and they would have had solid constitutional grounds upon which to do it.
Do you honestly believe it was the wisest course of action for was Romney to get impeached for failing to enforce the decision? How on Earth do you think that would have aided the cause of traditional marriage?
We're not. We all think he handled himself pretty well in the studio, the dishonesty of the host notwithstanding.
It appeared from the preparation the host must have made in order to read materials to Mitt that the host fully intended to try and focus on Mormonism and catch Mitt in conflict with Mormonism doctrine/dictates. He failed, obviously. The host tried to play gotcha and had it shoved right back down his smarmy throat!
Do you honestly believe it was the wisest course of action for was Romney to get impeached for failing to enforce the decision? How on Earth do you think that would have aided the cause of traditional marriage?
_________________________________________________________
Impeachment for ignoring a court requires the legislature and the court (and de facto the public) to unite against an executive. I have no idea of the politics involved there in Massachusetts. I also don’t know what role Romney played in enforcing the courts “decision” (drafting of a statute is more like what the court did, but anyway. . .). My opinion is that a Governor that stood up to a Court making a power grab and legislating homosexual marriage would become the most popular politician in the country and one of the most famous. He might also be right if the court actually legislated from the bench.
Would Massachusetts really have rose up against Romney in defense of the power of the courts and gay marriage? And would they have done so prior to the U.S. S.Ct. ruling on the matter? And would the S.Ct. have held to limit State judicial power to legislate and usurp legislative rights under a State Constitution, or would they have held that a court can write the laws that they also interpretm or would they have held the matter non-justiciable? It sure would have been interesting.
My point was not specific to Romney though. I was saying that at the Federal level the President and the Congress have the duty to defend the Constitution, and have rightful powers that allow them to do so, even against the Courts.
You mean deceptive like someone who fundamentally opposes someone for religious reasons but does it under the guise of "political" tactics. (Or for that matter decepetive like saying you are off record then not being. IOW, since when has the crtiteria for being a "stalwart conservative" included lying? In Carmenker's and Mickelson's case.)
Unfortunately Clinton's sins are being attributed to Mitt and other Pubbies by other "so-called" conservatives. Many of your posts try to link Romney with slick Willy. Just because you are hypersensitive to being burned by Clinton does not mean Romney is anything like him.
________________________________________
"I'm still trying to figure out how this fits into the politically-oriented nature of FreeRepublic.com." >Let me explain then.
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.
22 Posted on 07/02/2001 08:38:45 PDT by EternalVigilance [ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
In your world, guys who spout personal opinions unsupported by any Constitutional jurisprudence are “learned people.” I was taught Constitutional Law by a man who had an impeccable reputation as a Constitutional scholar and who argued 59 cases before the Supreme Court during his legal career. If you knew anything about Constitutional Law, you would know the impressiveness of that number of cases.
In case you hadn’t noticed amongst all the pseudo-legal babble spouted by the legal beagles, EV and Greg F, they haven’t provided any Constitutional jurisprudence to support their asinine assertion. I’m the only one who has provided actual text from the Constitution and Constitutional jurisprudence to support his position.
As you previously stated, best to stay on the porch, MHGINTN. The only spectacles being made are EV and Greg F for spouting an asinine claim and you for thinking their claim has merit.
I’m done with this thread. I’m sure all who read will see who has actually supported his position with actual citations to Supreme Court cases and not just spouted personal opinions. I’m off to get ready for trial. Some of us actually make a living practicing law instead of pretending that they do.
No, it just requires the legislature to unite against him, and legislatures don't always do what the public wants.
I have no idea of the politics involved there in Massachusetts. I also don’t know what role Romney played in enforcing the courts “decision” (drafting of a statute is more like what the court did, but anyway. . .).
Oh, okay. I assumed you had a position on this subject, because some irrational Romney critics have lambasted him for not defying the Massachussetts SJC gay marraige decision.
At any rate, he would easily have been impeached. While a majority of Massachusetts voters oppose gay marraige, most of the legislature did not. And they despised Romney. They would have used any means necessary to find a way to impeach him. Defying a SJC decision would have given them all the political cover they needed to do it.
Some gay marraige opponents would have sided with him in defying the court, but many others would not have done so. Traditional marriage is important, but it is neither wise nor necessary to sacrifice the rule of law in its defense.
Would Massachusetts really have rose up against Romney in defense of the power of the courts and gay marriage?
The legislature most definitely would have.
And would they have done so prior to the U.S. S.Ct. ruling on the matter?
The case would never have gone to SCOTUS. If Romney had tried to appeal the case to it, SOCUTS would have refused to hear it, since it has no jurisdiction over cases arrising under state constitutions.
My point was not specific to Romney though. I was saying that at the Federal level the President and the Congress have the duty to defend the Constitution, and have rightful powers that allow them to do so, even against the Courts.
Yes, that's your point, for which you have zero support either from the text of the Constitution or from the history of Constitutional jurisprudence.
Thank you for your intelligent input to this thread. It appears that those who suffer from MDS (Mormon Derangement Syndrome or Mitt Derangement Syndrome) are incapable of intelligent posting on the subject.
"Under the Banner of Heaven" is trash from a liberal secular agnostic. It is so bad that Ann Coulter specifically targets it in her book "Godless, The Church of Liberalism". The author among other things blames "Christian Fundamentalists" for terrorism and resposibility for 9/11.
Why would you even mention such liberal trash on FR as an authority on anything, let alone my faith?
I have read it BTW, a liberal professor in our community was using it for his class. When I caught wind of it a few of us went to him and asked to be part of the class discussion. He couldn't really say no. He was promoting the typical college anti-religion BS just trying to use Mormonism as an example to slander all Christianity.
Why is it when it comes to the Mitt or Mormon issue conservatives start spouting liberal trash like "Banner of Heaven" or DNC talking points?
See post #335
Regarding your assertion that I cited no text from the Constitution. The Presidential Oath of office is in the Constitution. Article II, Section I.
This blurb lays out some of the assertions that President’s have made regarding, more have been made outside of legal documents.
Clause 8. Oath of Office
That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘’preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. 102 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. 103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing.
SCOTUS can act to guarantee a Republican form of government under the Constitution, so it can grab jurisdiction if it wants to if a claim is made that the courts are legislating in a State. Doubt they would in this environment, but they could, and it would have been interesting. Can’t think of a better test case actually.
I’m the only one who has provided actual text from the Constitution and Constitutional jurisprudence to support his position.
_______________________________________________________
The oath of office for the President is in the Constitution you great scholar you! The power of the Congress to set the courts jurisdiction is as well.
Actually, is it--he said our foreign policy was responsible for 9-11 happening.
He's your nutjob, and you're stuck with his nutjob, "It's good the dems are in control now" policy statements.
I found it very informative. Sorry you’re experience was different.
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.