Posted on 02/16/2007 9:47:41 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Last weekend's Republican party convention featured Rudy Giuliani alone among the major presidential candidates, and Giuliani's people were present in significant numbers. They were aggressively meeting with legislators and delegates, engaging political operatives, and offering titles and duties to those who would commit. Rudy's speech on Saturday touched on uplifting Republcian themes, invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan, and naturally weighed in on the threat of terrorism.
Only toward the end of his remarks did he briefly touch on illegal immigration. Giuliani's message was, essentially, "well, yes, I know we have to control the border, especially now because of terrorism, but isn't it great that all these immigrants want to be in our country to work---it just shows what a great country we have".
MESSAGE TO RUDY: Republicans here will be appalled by this lack of understanding of California's illegal immigration crisis. This sounds like McCain all over again: obligatory acknowledgement of border control while ignoring the enormous costs of illegal immigration and gross violations of American law. This issue cuts across party lines. Californians---especially in San Diego---are fed up with footing the bill for healthcare, public safety, etc. (Do you know that 40% of all incarcerated illegals are in California---but we receive no assistance from the federal government or real border enforcement.)
Mitt Romney is the only major Republican candidate who is willing to be tough on this issue. It was crystal clear from Giuliani's speech what his true feelings are, and his lack of sympathy for those who must deal with the costs of illegal immigration is disturbing. If the coming California presidential primary includes even the slightest comparison between the candidates on this issue, neither McCain nor Giuliani will have a chance. Romney will then have a tremendous opportunity to capture this vote. Some may want to support Hunter or Tancredo (or Gingrich if he's on the ballot), but many who care about the issue will choose Romney because they believe he can win.
Guess what...that already existed. It's called Medicade, and Romney didn't invent it.
Besides, very few people qualify for subsidies under Romney's plan.
Add in the billion to two billion in taxpayer's dollars that were part of RomneyCare, and YES, you have a socialist disaster.
$2 billion? LOL. I'd love to see where you're getting those numbers.
The court never ordered Romney to do anything. It tried to coerce the legislative branch to endorse their little leftist revolutionary act. The legislature ignored them, and rightfully so. But, at the last minute, Romney stepped in and used his executive authority to enforce their completely unconstitutional lawlessness. The facts are clear no matter how hard the Romney campaign lies.
The proof is exhaustive, and is contained in the link I provided. It's so good, I'll provide it once again.
You obviously never read the court decision for yourself and are instead relying on spin. The court declared the State's marraige laws unconstitutional:
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
All the court did was stay its judgement for 180 days to allow the legislature to amend the marriage laws. It didn't, so the judgement went into effect without the legislature acting, which means that the governor could no longer exclude same-sex couples from marrying. The governor of a state cannot defy a supreme court judgement without risking impeachment.
Grow up.
Knock it off.
The court took legislative power unto themselves, and committed an unconstitutional act. Why are they not "at risk of impeachment?"
The chief executive has no obligation to follow unconstitutional orders, in this case, one which was issued to the legislature, not to him anyway. In fact, his oath is to uphold that document.
FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO BECOME LEGAL, EVERYONE INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, GOV. ROMNEY, CONSERVATIVES, LIBERALS, AND GAY ACTIVISTS ALL KNEW THAT THE LAWS WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED, BUT THE MARRIAGE LAW NEVER CHANGED.
BEFORE MAY 17, 2003, the marriage law did not permit same-sex "marriage." Thus, for gay marriage to be "legal" in Massachusetts . . . the law had to change. All three branches of government concurred, as well as conservatives, liberals, and gay activists. BUT the law was never changed.
BEFORE MAY 17, 2004, the JUDICIAL BRANCH knew the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) judges who wrote the Goodridge decision (i.e., the judicial branch) in November, 2003, knew they did not have the power to suspend the marriage law, which is why they explicitly did not strike it down (see Goodridge decision).
Rather, the Legislature was told to act within 180 days. The Court, however, did not order the legislature to change the laws. Nor did the Court order the Department of Public Health, a party in the Goodridge case, to issue marriage licenses (because the statute did not then, does not now, and never has permitted such marriages). The court simply "declared" an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the marriage statute.
The SJC clarified their Goodridge ruling in February of 2004 writing to the Senate, "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."
Why didn't the SJC simply order the laws to change? Because, as the Court recently held (in its opinion regarding the legislature's constitutional duy to vote on the citizens' proposed marriage amendment), it has no power to order another branch of government to act.
So then how can Mitt Romney claim the SJC (the judicial branch) would have forced him (the executive branch) to issue marriage licenses and get away with it?
Before May 17, 2004, STATE LAWMAKERS knew the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
In the Legislative branch, State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, also said in April of 2004, he believed the Legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004 deadline. "No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming."
Why did liberal Legislators state that a change in the law was forthcoming?
Before May 17, 2004, MITT ROMNEY knew the the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
Romney himself as the executive branch in April of 2004 said, the Legislature "has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws and see how they should be adjusted for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."
Why did Governor Romney, himself, agree that the legislature would need to change the laws?
Before May 17, 2004, even THE OPPOSITION'S LEGAL COUNSEL admitted that the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, agreed saying immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."
Why did Mary Bonauto believe the law had to be changed?
Before May 17, 2004, LIBERAL POLITICIANS knew the the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
In a letter to the Massachusetts legislature, Laurence Tribe, former Massachusetts Attorney General, William Weld, former Massachusetts Governor, Scott Harshbarger, former Massachusetts Attorney General, James M. Shannon, former Massachusetts Attorney General, Renee M. Landers (President Boston Bar Association urged the legislature . . . "to use the remainder of the time period in the court's stay to take any and all steps possible to facilitate the orderly issuance of marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. . . . Tribe, in an interview, said the letter is intended to urge lawmakers on both sides of the issue to pave the way and change existing state laws to bring them into compliance with the ruling, which the court stayed for six months to give the Legislature time to act.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/05/
weld_2_ex_ags_urge_passage_of_gay_marriage_law/
Why did liberal politicians urge the legislature to change the laws?
Before May 17, 2004, PRO-FAMILY LEADERS knew the legislature had to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
Why did Pro-family leaders ask the Governor to ignore the Goodridge opinion?
a. Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, 3-30-04
"FRC's Perkins says federal legislators should take heed. 'All eyes are now on Governor Mitt Romney, who is the last defense for marriage in Massachusetts,' he says."(Agape Press)
b. Genevieve Wood, Family Research Council, 3-30-04
'I think what's most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17.' ”
c. Robert Knight, Director, Culture & Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, 3-30-04
"Supporters of traditional marriage are urging Romney to intervene via an executive order that would allow the legislative process to proceed. 'It's now up to the governor to put the brakes on this madness,' says Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. 'He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17, homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage.' (Agape Press)
d. Mat Staver, Esq, Liberty Counsel (http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/mass.htm)
Governor Mitt Romney . . . has the authority to preserve the definition of marriage, and thus the authority to issue an Executive Order prohibiting the issuance, solemnization and recordation of same-sex marriage licenses. Moreover, since the Executive branch enforces the law, it does not have to implement or enforce the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Without the Executive branch enforcing the court decision, the court’s ruling is meaningless. The Department of Public Health, the Registrar and the City and Town Clerks all come under the Executive branch. (May 2004)
“The executive branch, through the governor, is empowered to issue an executive order refusing to implement the ruling, Staver contends. The Massachusetts legislature also is empowered to pass a law stating that courts have no authority to redefine marriage.” (5-18-04 - WorldNetDaily)
e. Dwight Duncan’s Boston.com Blog ((authored by Jonathan Goulding, Ave Maria School of Law, 5/14/2004)
Therefore, when the Court found that those statutes did not permit same-sex marriages, the Court effectively denied town clerks and Department of Health officials the ability to confer marriage upon same-sex unions until the legislature takes further action.
Principles of our democratic republic demand that law be created by duly elected representatives. Those in the executive branch or in subordinate agencies-for example, town clerks-are not permitted to create law on an ad hoc basis. When, as has happened in Massachusetts, a state's highest court allows time for a legislature to change current statutes, procrastination on the part of the legislature does not empower those responsible for implementing existing law to proceed as if the statutes had been duly changed. Simply put, state officials may not implement a legislative scheme that does not yet exist…Aside from an entry of the Court's judgment declaring that the lack of provision in the law for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, nothing more will result. There will be no provision for valid same-sex marriages.
http://www.boston.com/news/special/gay_marriage/blogs/chrisfunnell1.html
f. Judge Robert Bork
Judge Bork called the illegal imposition of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts "completely untethered from the state or federal constitutions and from the rule of law.”
g. Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College, “The Missing Governor” 5-17-04
"Romney could invoke his powers under the constitution; cite the error of the court in seizing jurisdiction wrongfully for itself; and order all licenses of marriage to be sent on to Boston, to his office, until the legislature, in the fullness of time, settled its policy on marriage…. Is it now too late? That isn't altogether clear. Today has become the decisive date only because of the holding of the Supreme Judicial Court. But this argument over the error of the court, or the wrongful taking of jurisdiction, does not expire on May 17. That argument is still open, which means that it could be plausible for the governor to make that move at any time. But why should he make that move when receding has now become his signature tune?
h. Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family, 5-18-04
"Dobson … said he's distressed the decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples was fueled by a politically correct agenda with 'no regard for the rule of law' … 'This is not the first time a tyrannical court – in this case the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – has force-fed the people a liberal agenda disguised as the rule of law,' he said. 'But it may be the most devastating example of that kind of judicial activism.' ”
i. Tom Minnery, Vice President Focus on the Family
It is the constitutional duty of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, and not the courts, to decide the social policy for the state."
j. Patrick J. Buchanan, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge” 2-9-04
“What's a governor to do? … Defy the court. Romney should step out in front of the state press corps and read a statement that would stun America, rally social and judicial conservatives of both parties, and bring every network camera in the nation to Boston: ‘I have read the court's decision, and while I respect the court, I cannot respect its decision. There is no basis for it in law. There is no basis for it in precedent. There is no basis for it in the letter or spirit of the constitution of our Commonwealth nor in the intent of the men who wrote that constitution… And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November…. I will neither propose nor will I sign any bill from the legislature that places homosexual unions on a moral and legal plane with traditional matrimony. To do so would violate my oath, conflict with my beliefs and trample upon the convictions of the people of this state.' After issuing his statement, the governor should take up leadership of the fight to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment restricting marriage in Massachusetts to men and women. What would the Massachusetts high court do? Declare Romney in contempt? Order Romney's arrest? Tell state employees to start accepting requests from homosexuals for marriage licenses? Romney could tell the employees to politely reject such requests….” (syndicated column, “Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge”)
Why did Pat Buchanan believe the Governor could ignore the SJC ruling?
k. Dan Avila, Massachusetts Catholic Conference
“The Justices could point to no other justification for their ruling than their own beliefs. They have ordered the legislature to act within 180 days. That means the legislature is now being forced to change all the laws that address marriage, including the anti-discrimination laws. [Responses of Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts to Goodridge Decision, Nov. 18, 2003; http://www.macathconf.org/03goodridge_press_statements.htm]
Why did Dan Avila believe the legislature was going to have to change the law?
l. Ronald A. Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute in 2004
"[A]t least [the liberal politicians listed above] are acknowledging that the debate is now before the Legislature, and I believe that is the proper venue." Crews also said: One alternative is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples . . .
Why did Ron crews believe the legislature could debate this still?
m. Jan LaRue Legal Counsel, Concerned Women for America, 2-5-04
"Jan LaRue dismissed the notion that same-sex "marriage" was now inevitable in Massachusetts. 'The court expressly refused to strike down the state's marriage laws,' LaRue said. 'They are still on the books. The court did not order the Legislature to grant same-sex marriage. It gave the Legislature 180 days to take whatever action 'it deemed appropriate in light of the ruling. (Talon News)
n. Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance, Dec. 2003
"The Governor must issue an executive order openly defying any further action by the Superior Court and ordering that: Neither the Department of Public Health nor any public employee in Massachusetts may disobey the current marriage laws; and same-sex marriage licenses will NOT be legally recognized in Massachusetts.”
CONFUSED YET?
Conventional wisdom says that the SJC created same-sex "marriage."
But a basic principle is that courts do not make laws, only legislatures do. See Bowe v. Secretary of the Commonwealth , 320 Mass. 230 (1946) (“The people by the Constitution created the legislative branch of government as well as the executive and judicial branches, and conferred and at the same time limited the powers of each of them. Each must act pursuant to the Constitution and within the authority conferred by it.”).
If the Goodridge ruling DID indeed "change the law," then why, BEFORE MAY 17, 2004, did everyone quoted above say that the legislature would need to "change the law?"
What exactly would the legislature need to have done if the SJC had already taken care of it?
Arguable. But the governor does not have the authority to determine that legally.
Why are they not "at risk of impeachment?"
Because a state legislature domniated by democrats would never impeach them.
The chief executive has no obligation to follow unconstitutional orders,
He has no authority to determine whether they are unconstitutional. Under our system, the court is the final arbiter.
in this case, one which was issued to the legislature, not to him anyway.
No it wasn't. You obviously did not read the decision.
In fact, his oath is to uphold that document.
His oath is to uphold the constitution, which gives the court the final authority in how the law is interpreted. In this case, they interpreted the law as requiring the government to marry same sex couples.
FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO BECOME LEGAL, EVERYONE INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, GOV. ROMNEY, CONSERVATIVES, LIBERALS, AND GAY ACTIVISTS ALL KNEW THAT THE LAWS WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED, BUT THE MARRIAGE LAW NEVER CHANGED.
That's simply not true.
BEFORE MAY 17, 2003, the marriage law did not permit same-sex "marriage." Thus, for gay marriage to be "legal" in Massachusetts . . . the law had to change.
The court changed the interpretation of the law so as it would allow same sex marriage. The only way to legally overturn that interpretation is by constitutional amendment.
FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO BECOME LEGAL, EVERYONE INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, GOV. ROMNEY, CONSERVATIVES, LIBERALS, AND GAY ACTIVISTS ALL KNEW THAT THE LAWS WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED, BUT THE MARRIAGE LAW NEVER CHANGED.
False. Read the ruling.
That's just plain false.
Rather, the Legislature was told to act within 180 days. The Court, however, did not order the legislature to change the laws.
This is partly correct. The court stayed its ruling for 180 days to give the legislature the opportunity to act. However, if the legislature did not act, the ruling would go into effect, and that's precisely what happened.
The court simply "declared" an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the marriage statute.
Yes, and it also changed the definition of marriage. Court opinions on such matters are binding.
So then how can Mitt Romney claim the SJC (the judicial branch) would have forced him (the executive branch) to issue marriage licenses and get away with it?
Because the court explicitly ruled that the state could not deny marriage lisenses to same-sex couples. I've already quoted the relevent passage from the ruling.
Not only does he have the authority, he has the express sworn duty. Ever hear of "co-equal" branches? Or did they train that out of you in a law school somewhere?
They wouldn't have impeached Romney either. That's strawman put up by Romney's spinners.
Which makes you a judicial supremacist, one of those doing more harm to our republican form of government than anyone else.
False, and you've provided no evidence to back up this claim.
In the Legislative branch, State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, also said in April of 2004, he believed the Legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004 deadline. "No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming."
Why did liberal Legislators state that a change in the law was forthcoming?
Because they thought they would succeed in changed the law. They failed.
Before May 17, 2004, MITT ROMNEY knew the the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
False.
Romney himself as the executive branch in April of 2004 said, the Legislature "has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws and see how they should be adjusted for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."
And where precisely did Romney admit that "legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex 'marriage' to become legal?"
Why did Governor Romney, himself, agree that the legislature would need to change the laws?
He didn't.
Cite, please.
Nope.
GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, agreed saying immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."
Where does he say the law has to be changed? Not in that quote.
Why did Mary Bonauto believe the law had to be changed?
He didn't.
Before May 17, 2004, LIBERAL POLITICIANS knew the the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.
They never said anything of the sort.
In a letter to the Massachusetts legislature, Laurence Tribe, former Massachusetts Attorney General, William Weld, former Massachusetts Governor, Scott Harshbarger, former Massachusetts Attorney General, James M. Shannon, former Massachusetts Attorney General, Renee M. Landers (President Boston Bar Association urged the legislature . . . "to use the remainder of the time period in the court's stay to take any and all steps possible to facilitate the orderly issuance of marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. . . . Tribe, in an interview, said the letter is intended to urge lawmakers on both sides of the issue to pave the way and change existing state laws to bring them into compliance with the ruling, which the court stayed for six months to give the Legislature time to act.
And where do they say the laws had to be changed in order for gay marraige to take effect?
Why did liberal politicians urge the legislature to change the laws?
Because they are pro gay marraige and would rather see it explicitly put into legislation. That doesn't mean the court couldn't impose it by other means, which it did.
Indeed they did. And that "check" to their unconstitutional order would have stood, too...if Romney had simply did what the legislature did. Nothing.
Instead, he joined these four out of control leftist judges by using his executive powers to check the legislative branch. Like Begala said, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Pretty cool."
I haven't the faintest idea. Possibly because they were deseperately trying to think of ways of stopping gay marraige, and thought defiance of the court might work. Luckily, Romney didn't listen to them. To ignore the court would have been political suicide for him.
LOL. Boy are you naive. Massachusetts state democrats loath Romney. They would have used any excuse to impeach him if they had the chance. A clear violation of a court judgement would give them more than enough.
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.