Virgil Goode for President?

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | July 7 2012 | washingtonexaminer.com

[NoLibZone]

Former Virginia congressman Virgil Goode may be looking for a new job: Presidential candidate.

That’s one way to read a fundraising appeal the Constitution Party recently issued:

Former Virginia Congressman, Virgil Goode, has expressed a strong interest in seeking the Constitution Party Presidential nomination in 2012 and at its meeting this past weekend, the Constitution Party National Committee unanimously passed a resolution inviting him to do just that.

Okay, so the party has invited Goode to go for it. The GOP and Democratic Party don’t issue similar exhortations when candidates seek their party nominations, but maybe they should test the idea in fundraising to see if it lifts response rates.

But what of Mr. Goode? Followers of Virginia politics will recall that he was a long-time member of the state Senate – and a Democrat. He was a big early supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment. But he wasn’t always an obedient Democrat, as he mounted primary challenges to then-incumbent U.S. Senator Chuck Robb in 1994 and was part of a power-sharing agreement with state Republicans as they began their ascendancy under then-Gov. George Allen (R).

Elected to Congress in 1996, he became an independent in January 2000 and was re-elected in November. Eventually, Goode became a Republican, and voters in Virginia's 5th congressional district sent him back to Washington five more times. In 2008, he narrowly lost his seat to Democrat Tom Perriello, who was defeated in 2010 by former GOP state Sen. Robert Hurt.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

You arrange idiot. Anymore just vote for obama and be done with it. Moron.

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps OneWingedShark does arrange idiots. Did he put you near the front of the line?

[OneWingedShark]

Question: Why is that retort applause-worthy?
Question: If my claim of having little faith in the Republican party to follow-up on its stated platform planks is wrong why?
Question: How is the reasoning I’ve put forward morally-wrong or logically-inconsistent? (Note that IF-statements are always true if the conditional is false.)

[OneWingedShark]

You arrange idiot.

I don't think I arranged anything. Anymore just vote for obama and be done with it.

Well, that's what people keep saying vote for Romney.

Moron.

Right, I'm a moron. [/sarc]

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet Question: Why is that retort applause-worthy?

Because, simply put, those of you who have an IRATIONAL Hatred for Mitt and/or Mormons, could care less about the SAFETY and SURVIVAL of our Republic and would as soon see Dear Leader get reelected so he can spend another 4 years finishing what he started up to now.

I SERIOUSLY doubt there is ONE Freeper here who wanted to see Mittens as the nominee.

That said, most of us recognize the THREAT Dear Leader poses to the United States and will do whatever we can to try and prevent him from being successful.

Y'all can stand on your so called "Principles;" we will stand, fight and oppose EVIL!!!

[af_vet_rr]

It may be easier for our side to keep Romney in line. If Obama wins, with MSM support he'll be unstoppable. Since President Romney-R won't get any cover from the MSM, we and a GOP controlled Congress may be able to stop any leftist ideas he proposes.

We couldn't keep Bush in line with both the House and Senate - they went crazy, pigs at a trough, and we ended up with the biggest, most intrusive, and most expensive federal government in our history, until Obama came along. I have seen nothing in Romney's record or his past that leads me to believe that Romney won't be just as bad as Bush.

[OneWingedShark]

Y'all can stand on your so called "Principles;" we will stand, fight and oppose EVIL!!!

Will you shed blood to oppose evil? I have been thinking about this since 2008, and I am still not sure I posses the stones to bleed for my principles, I should like to hope that I do, though such a musing, ultimately, is worthless until the "rubber hits the road." -- I admit that I view the world as black/white, good/evil, and that I am 'idealistic', my retort to you is: so what? Your "fighting evil" by aligning yourself with evil (socialist comrade Romney) is actually not fighting against evil, but fighting for evil... ok, so it's not vicious and violent evil but a smiling, "all the cool kids are doing it" evil.

[ImpBill]

"Then why don't you get gone from the FR forum and quit wasting our bandwidth!?!"

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Has Jim changed this from a conservative forum to a GOP forum?

[harpu]

"Jim Robinson has not changed. One of his recents posts yesterday or today makes very clear that there’s no way he is supporting Mitt Romney."

Is it true...you are in 'no way' supporting Mitt Romney if he is the Republican nominee?

[Jim Robinson]

I have been posting that fact ever since the abortionist/homosexualists Rudy and Romney started making noises about possibly running for the presidency way back when. I will not go along with the shift to progressivism by the Republican party. I flat will not vote for the abortionist/homosexualist statist bastards!!

What part of Free Republic is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-small (constitutionally limited) government, pro-Liberty do you not understand?

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

OK, JimRob. We’ll put you down as a “maybe”. (Just kidding. Read my tag line.)

[harpu]

"What part of Free Republic is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-small (constitutionally limited) government, pro-Liberty do you not understand?"

Sad, if you really felt it necessary to 'dot your I' with the above!! Been here too long for that kind of BS.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, people keep badgering me about this. No I will not vote for an abortionist for president. Period. It’s no secret. I’ve been posting that I will not vote for Rudy/Romney abortionist for many years. Have had a headline stating that fact on the top of our main forum index page for years:

Welcome to Free Republic, America’s exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives!

Romney does not qualify on any count!

[88keys]

Thank you for the most succinct statement, and the most excellent site!

My only question at this point, and I'm looking for answers, not "flames", is: what exactly is Romney's position regarding right to life? I understand he made some bad decisions as governor of Massachusetts, and was forced into some "compromises" by a solid Democrat House and Senate. What about now? and more importantly, is it possible/credible that he's either had a legitimate change of heart (it's been known to happen), OR he has always personally been pro-life, and views being POTUS as a different "platform" than being governor of Massachusetts, where he didn't really have much power to influence the legislators?

I do understand the principles involved here, and I'm not advocating for Governor Romney. I am advocating against four more years of President Obama. Give me another realistic option, and I'm there!!

[SoConPubbie]

Sad, if you really felt it necessary to 'dot your I' with the above!! Been here too long for that kind of BS.

My aren't we sensitive.

What's sad is that Jim has posted this over and over again and you get excited because he posts is again.

[SoConPubbie]

I understand he made some bad decisions as governor of Massachusetts, and was forced into some "compromises" by a solid Democrat House and Senate.

First of all, you have to get the foundation of your understanding correct before you can start on the search for answers.

Romney never was "forced" into compromises.

He CHOSE to compromise.

He was not forced to unconsitutionally implement Gay Marriage, he CHOSE to do that over the publicly stated protestations of most conservatives at the time. Romney not only had the choice, he had the constitutional duty to refuse to implement Gay Marriage.

I will post a copy of the letter that they signed and hand-delivered to Romney that perfectly lays out in detail the unconstitutional nature of his actions where Gay Marriage is concerned to prove my point.

Romney was not "Forced" into nominating 27 of 36 extreme, radical leftists, he CHOSE to nominate those nominees. He could have always refused the group of jurists he was given to select from, he CHOSE not to.

He did not just make bad decisions, he made HORRIBLE CHOICES.

[SoConPubbie]

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)


December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:

g[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)

In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:

"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)

We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:

"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)

We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:

gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:

"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)

Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Signed,
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001

[aruanan]

Virgil Goode for President?

Johnny B. Goode has a better shot.

[SoConPubbie]

Romney was not "Forced" into nominating 27 of 36 extreme, radical leftists, he CHOSE to nominate those nominees.

Furthermore, even after his so-called "Pro-Life Conversion" he was still nominating jurists who were radically Pro-Abortion.

You cannot trust a word this politican says.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

We couldn't keep Bush in line with both the House and Senate - they went crazy, pigs at a trough, and we ended up with the biggest, most intrusive, and most expensive federal government in our history, until Obama came along.

The failure of a certain predecessor had a lot to do with that. But I'll grant that Bush was more into big government than I liked.

I have seen nothing in Romney's record or his past that leads me to believe that Romney won't be just as bad as Bush.

The difference is that Bush was "our man", while Romney was our (Conservatives) last choice and his only saving grace is that he isn't Obama. For this reason alone, out side will be more willing to hold his "liberalism" in check (I hope).

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Sorry, “out side” should be “our side”, although I sure feel like Conservatives are outsiders after this.