Replies

We are arguing (actually, you are emoting and I'm laughing at the depth of your obsession) about the meaning of words.

You claimed that Romney signed a permanent GUN ban.

What he signed was an "assault weapons" ban. It did not ban: revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, or most categories of rifles. But okay, chief. If you want, I'll agree to your terminology. Romney obviously did sign a bill that banned some guns and he was wrong to do so, no matter what his rationale. Banning some guns is not the same thing as banning "all" guns, but it's still wrong and obviously we agree on that.

Now, you have chosen to focus on this particular issue to avoid having to answer my original statement to you in which I accused you of telling lies about Romney. I was not just talking about guns - you made other questionable statements, including:

"Obamacare is the same thing as Romneycare, just nationwide".

FALSE - Obamacare is vastly more intrusive and complex and involves the creation of hundreds of new bureaucracies and thousands of new regulations. Romneycare was a model of simplicity by comparison. It still sucks. But it is a far cry from what Obama has done.

"Mittens gave Massachusetts homosexual marriage".

FALSE. - The Courts did that. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. The court gave the Mass. legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its ruling. Governor Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents married same-sex partners from having their marriage recognized by the federal government. In 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional. In May 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling, finding DOMA unconstitutional, but stayed enforcement of the decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court.

"The Founders had lots to say about homosexuals."

LOL. Really? I don't recall that from my repeated readings of Madison and Hamilton's Federalist Papers or John Adams' diaries or Thomas Jefferson's essays, or Patrick Henry's speeches, or George Washington's letters. Sorry. I must have missed their key insights on that issue.

"Mittens gave Massachusetts homosexual marriage". FALSE. - The Courts did that.

"Professor Scott Fitzgibbon of Boston College Law School wrote that the Goodridge decision “did not mandate that the executive branch issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.” Constitutional scholar Herb Titus said that Romney “exercised illegal legislative authority” and added “there was no order. There wasn’t even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything.” Matt Staver, Dean of Liberty Law School, said that Romney “went out and ordered to licenses to be changed, and if fact, that’s not his duty. His duty was to abide by the legislature….the governor actually participated, in my opinion, in advancing same-sex marriage.”
Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College, said that “the deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor….and if it is countdown for marriage…it is also countdown for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken… Robert Bork, who was somehow persuaded to endorse Romney, back in his more alert years described the Goodridge decision as being “completely untethered from the state and Federal constitutions and from the rule of law.”
www.romneyexposed.com

Dr. Herb Titus:
“Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney to justify the former Massachusetts Governor’s decision to implement the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that declared that the exclusion of otherwise qualified same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.
After the debate, Mr. Romney stated to Mr. Santorum that he did all that he legally could to stop the implementation of the court’s decision before he exercised his duty as Governor to enforce the court’s decision requiring local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He issued a challenge to Mr. Santorum to find any qualified legal authority that would not agree with him. I have been asked to meet that challenge.
I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I am an active member of the Virginia bar and the bar of a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. As a professor of constitutional law for nearly 30 years in four different ABA-approved law schools, and as a practicing lawyer, I have written a number of scholarly articles and legal briefs on a variety of constitutional subjects; including the nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers and the constitutional separation of those powers.
I am generally familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution, and especially familiar with that constitution’s provision dictating that no department shall exercise the powers that belong to either of the other two departments “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”
As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons.
First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.
Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.
Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.
Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.
Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.
SteveDeace.com

Conveniently, like all MittBots, you've left out the details of that situation that don't fit your support of Romney.

Romney was constitutionally required to NOT implement the Gay Marriage ordered by the Supreme Court because it was directly and plainly unconstitutional.

It is very plainly written in the MA Constitution that all matters concerning marriage are to originate with the Legislature. What the Supreme Court of MA ordered, started directly with the Supreme Court of MA, not the Legislature.

Furthermore, Mitt was soundly and publically warned of this before he moved to implement Gay Marriage.

A letter was hand-delivered to Mitt from 44 conservatives and jurists clearly proving that what he was thinking of doing was unconstitutional.

I post the letter here in the hope that you are honest enough to read it and consider it.

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 judgesf 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 courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh 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 legislaturec" (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 citizensf 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, Parentsf 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