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.
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.