In Case You Don't Like Romney... A Challenge To Every FReeper

email from friend

[MindBender26]

In Case You Don't Like Romney...

Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election …

“If Romney wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who may have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:

1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78

2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year

3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August

4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago and has had cancer twice.

Whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”

So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win ... just imagine this possibility:

'SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER'

Did that get your attention!

[bramps]

And don’t your words and insults also apply to Newt Gingrich, the man you voted for? Sounds like you are one confused, conflicted man or woman.

[SoConPubbie]

Finally, you are posting some of the BS you either believe, or more probably know is a lie and are trying to use to BS other FReepers.

One needs to go no further than your point #1 to find a deliberate lie, that Romeny created gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Here are the facts:

Garbage!

Here are the facts from a letter of 44 conservatives and jurists begging Romney to follow the MA Constitution in this matter:

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

“[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.” (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’ 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).

So Romney refused to perform his constitutional duty when he knew what the Supreme Court of MA had tried to do, legislate illegally and unconstitutionally, Gay Marriage into existence.

Do you research before you post.

[SoConPubbie]

And don’t your words and insults also apply to Newt Gingrich, the man you voted for? Sounds like you are one confused, conflicted man or woman.

What insults?

As for a comparison between Romney, Obama, and Gingrich, here is one that shows how close Romney's record aligns with Obama and how opposite Gingrich's record is from Obama's:

[SoConPubbie]

PS, Sarah Palin, you remember her, she endorsed Romeny too!

Of course, she’s just a RINO, right?

Under what convoluted logic can you infer such nonsense?

[SaraJohnson]

I’ll decide for myself what is foolish and what is not foolish, thank you.

Been around the bend and I know a back stabbing liberal elitist when I watch one operate for YEARS.

[SoConPubbie]

Gingrich supports Romney
Santorum supports Romney
Cain supports Romney
Bachmann supports Romney

But, of course, they’re all RINOs and you know better !

Nobody said they are RINOS, however, on this issue, they are lacking principle.

You cannot support someone whose record so clearly declares him to be a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal and keep your principle intact.

[bramps]

Nobody said they are RINOS, however, on this issue, they are lacking principle.

---

But you voted for Newt. Meaning you willfully voted for a man you don't think has principles concerning one of the most important decisions a man can make, voting for president. Sounds pretty unprincipled to me.

[bramps]

...and in virtually every debate, Newt made it very clear that everyone on stage (INCLUDING MITT ROMNEY) would be light years better than Obama. But you still voted for Newt??????

[SoConPubbie]

Finally, you are posting some of the BS you either believe, or more probably know is a lie and are trying to use to BS other FReepers.

One needs to go no further than your point #1 to find a deliberate lie, that Romeny created gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Here are the facts:

No, here is the whole story, including everything you left out that did not complement your boy, that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney:

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

[SoConPubbie]

But you voted for Newt. Meaning you willfully voted for a man you don't think has principles concerning one of the most important decisions a man can make, voting for president. Sounds pretty unprincipled to me.

Another decietful debating technique by a supporter of the Lying, Left-wing, Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney.

Pretend there is no material difference in the quality of the records of an actual conservative and the documented Progressive Liberal record of Mitt Romney and then falsely try to imply that I am looking for perfection.

I am not, I am looking for someone who is actually a conservative and that can be trusted to do what he says he will do.

Mitt fails on both accounts.

[Norm Lenhart]

Not sure why I’m bothering since you have shown no ability to demonstrate perspective but here does:

I have been one of the most vocal proponents of a Palin presidency on FR. I have literally typed hundreds of pages rebutting PDSers with fact. I intended to vote for her if she would have run. I DID vote for her when she was on the ticket with JM.

Because I believed she was right. In most ways I still do. I am 100% behind her policywise. But she is 100% WRONG on Romney. I do not agree with it. She is making the very same mistake you are. The difference is that SP is not running around web forums calling people traitors, telling them that their non Romney vote is a vote for Zilch and other high school BS that we see here.

Had you done your research better, you’d have seen my multiple previous posts stating clearly that one cannot serve two masters. Whether it’s SP, Rush, Levin. Hannity, or any ‘normal’ person, you stick to your principles or you do not.

Over several hundred posts on this thread and half a dozen others that went over a thousand posts on this subject, I have repeatedly asked for ANYONE to explain how a person can vote Romney without abandoning their conservatism to do so.

Not a single person has had the ability to do so.

What does that tell you? They and you have danced around it, called me names, changed the subject and more. But they REFUSE to address, much less ANSWER the question.

Now, back to Palin...

I do in fact think less of her because she is in fact abandoning conservative principles to support Romney. That does not mean she is evil, just VERY wrong. And I will not support her on that. I will support many of the policy positions she forwards and many of her ideas as they are rock solid. But here she failed miserably. If at any point she were to behave in the manner that many of you ABO types do...running around calling principled people ‘traitors’ and such, then make room under the bus because you’ll be getting company. See the difference?

Do you see a flaw in this logic? Do you see any hypocrisy? Because if you do, I’d love the opportunity to correct myself. I may not be perfect, but I try to be consistent. And I try to do it without ‘implying’ people are prostitutes’ to get my point across.

[Norm Lenhart]

Yes, her post stating such was posted verbatim on this thread along with others with some pretty negative stuff RE Jim and Freepers.

[Norm Lenhart]

“You posted that “I’m so tired of this crap. So few people left have any integrity. And they just make excuse after excuse.”

Actually that was my quote ;)

“IMO, the people without integrity are those who spout ABO and then denigrate those unwilling to support a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal, even out of fear of the worst possible President we have ever had in Obama.”

Absolutely true.

Having been through the PDS wars and the civil war of the primaries, these people really shouldn’t surprise me. But they do. I can only shake my head at what the ‘conservative’ movement has come to.

“I’m a conservative and I’m voting for a liberal to save the country”.

That’s what this mess boils down to. They can deny it, but here’s the facts.

1: they claim to be conservative.

2: Mitt Romney, regardless of his GOP affiliation, has a voting record that is unarguably liberal.

3: They are voting for him expecting him to reverse course on Obama policies and ‘save the country’ from them.

Ergo...
“I’m a conservative and I’m voting for a liberal to save the country”.

Is the bottom line. It’s a completely accurate summation of their ‘logic’. They cannot honestly deny that because the facts prove it. All they can do is justify themselves and attempt to ease their troubled conscience. And that justification comes in the form of railing those who refuse to abandon what they believe in. I will now ask another question that is sure to be ducked, dodged and spun.

“How does one ‘save their country’ by going against the very principles and ideas that founded the country?”

How does abandoning our stance on abortion save the country?
How does abandoning our stance on gay marriage and gays in the military save the country?
How does consistently giving up the things we believe make America, save America?

Those things alone show why the ABO stance is a recipe for disaster. Sure, Romney is going to win. But either way, America has lost. Not because of Romney, but because people have become a nation of people willing to elect a man with his ‘values’.

When a conservative looks to a liberal for solutions, wither conservatism has failed utterly or the ‘conservative’ has abandoned his beliefs. No other option.

[muawiyah]

i particularly like that point that demonstrates Massachusetts already has an anti-gay marriage amendment. That's the part that removes the courts from jurisdiction in cases of marriage.

Mitt himself invented gay marriage in Massachusetts. He seems to have a different sort of view of marriage than do other Americans.

So strange.

Wonder why.

[cripplecreek]

There should be zero tolerance from anyone calling themselves conservatives on the issue of Illegal Immigrations.

Considering the facts, it should be called treasonous.

30 million illegals is enough to create some 50 primarily democrat congressional districts and they don't even need to do it. As it is, they have another 8 years of building numbers before the next census.

I asked my congressman how much it costs to administer a congressional district at its most basic level. He said a nice round average is probably around $10 million with urban districts costing considerably more and the sparsely populated districts costing considerably less.

When I asked how much in pork and earmarks is requested he just kind of laughed and said he couldn't estimate it but depending on what was wanted some ask for hundreds of billions and others ask for millions.

Finally I asked what he thought illegals were costing us. He said more than we've ever heard estimated. He said that all tallied up it rivals Social security, welfare, and all our foreign aid combined.

[altura]

I did not.

[Colonel_Flagg]

“I’m a conservative and I’m voting for a liberal to save the country”.

Followed closely on the Amazement Scale by:

"You're a conservative and you're voting for a conservative. Therefore, you're really voting for a Marxist."

[Norm Lenhart]

Really?

To: reaganaut
If you are voting for Romney you are not a conservative, sign up date doesn’t mean much.

Here is another way altura is liberal. Below are direct quotes from her.

Neither of my children are gay and both are very good people, but I can envision a scenario in which I would support gay marriage if one of my children were gay and wanted to marry.
I think support is the operative word. A lot of people don’t care but are okay with it. So, even though I am not fervently opposed to gay marriage, I really don’t care.

altura is a pro-Romney liberal if there ever was one.
948 posted on Friday, June 15, 2012 11:44:39 AM by South40

[duffee]

There are many reasons to vote for Romney over obama, and to not vote 3rd party which may result in the election of obama, but Im’m really tired of hearing the Supreme Court appointment argument, it only adds to my anxiety. Obama would probanly appoint a marxist, Romney would probably appoint a liberal, he has never appointed a Conservative to anything nor has he indicated he would appoint Conservatives to anything. A decision by a liberal or a Marxist on the Supreme Court will have the same effect, America, Conservatives, our Constitution and the Republic lose.

Now that I,ve said that this gives me an opportunity to re-post my Romney endorsement.

“Who thought a year ago when Conservatives were saying “ANYBODY BUT oBAMA” we would actually get the anybody? It’s time to “swallow the bitter pill”, “eat crow”, “gangrene has set in, time to cut off the foot”. I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016. If obama is re-elected I believe any future elections will be a complete sham. A bumper sticker that read “VOTE for the RINO, IT’S IMPORTANT” would be in order but may dampen enthusiasm for those that have it.

There, that does it Romney now has my official endorsement, my promise to vote for the Republican nominee will be honored, I’m also going to send a small check to the NRC, probably with a note attached, and a small check to the Romney campaign, with a note attached, and a check to Newt to help pay off his obligations and a note attached thanking him for what he has done for Conservatives, Republicans and the Nation and for stepping forward again in these troubled times and pointing us to the right path even though we chose to turn left.”

[svcw]

January 2, 2006 Boston Globe:

For 17 years, Massachusetts couples have asked friends, family and loved ones to solemnize their marriage under an obscure state law allowing the governor to grant one-day certificate to officiate a wedding. Since same-sex marriage became legal in May, 2004, Governor Mitt Romney has approve at least 189 requests from same-sex couples in 2005, along with about 1,040 applications for heterosexual couples. The one-day certificates, which cost $25, allow virtually anyone to legally solemnize a marriage anywhere in the commonwealth.