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.
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.