Posted on 01/19/2007 7:14:00 PM PST by Gelato
Romney Violated Massachusetts Constitution by Ordering ‘Same-Sex Marriage’
44 U.S. pro-family leaders signed letter asking him to recant illegal orders
By Meg Jalsevac
HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.
The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.
The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.
Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”
As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.
The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA.
Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a felony. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.
Throughout the whole ordeal, Romney maintained that he was personally against ‘homosexual marriage’ but that he must “execute the law.” The conservatives’ letter clearly illustrates how Romney was not “executing the law” but merely facilitating the agenda of activist judges – beyond even the judges’ own expectations.
The letter clearly explained how Romney’s actions, in reality, are a crime under Massachusetts because of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
The authors called Romney to task for ignoring the solemnity of the oath of office that he took in which he swore to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts. They requested that Romney publicly repeal his orders to perform ‘same-sex marriages’ throughout the state and confirm the fact that, under Massachusetts law, ‘same-sex marriage’ remains illegal. They also ask that Romney publicly take to task the political officials that worked to undermine the constitution to bring about ‘same sex marriage’ in Massachusetts.
John Haskins, writer and family activist, told LifeSiteNews.com, “Mitt Romney’s contribution to history will be that he pro-actively imposed ‘homosexual marriage’ in stark violation of the state Constitution that he swore to uphold. Those denying this are subverting the rule of law and the plain language of a constitution.”
Haskins expressed frustration at conservatives like Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard and Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund who he says initially counseled Romney not to permit gay marriage but then defended the governor’s actions saying that he had no choice but to obey the law. On the MassResistance website, Haskins says, “Our lawyers, law professors and pro-family political leaders are blundering this historic challenge because we have wandered far from the Constitutional texts we swore to defend. Some of them are realizing this belatedly. Others appear determined to defend and disguise their own errors (some quite fundamental) at whatever cost to Massachusetts and America.”
The legal background and framework of the letter was researched and confirmed by attorney Robert Paine, an expert on the topic of MA’s unconstitutional ‘same-sex marriages’.
Of the 44 signers of the Romney letter, several prominent conservative leaders are listed including Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Robert H. Knight, veteran Washington political activist and a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; 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 and columnist; Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer; Phil Lawler, Catholic World News; David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute; Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine; Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; and Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston.
As reported previously by LifeSiteNews.com, Romney is known for flip-flopping and wavering on key social issues. Coinciding with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney just recently declared himself a pro-life figure despite a history of inconsistent decisions in life issues.
Read the full text of the letter: http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/dec_lette...
Read ‘Romney Gay Marriage Timeline’ at MassResistance.com http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/timeline....
Read Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
Homosexual “Marriage” Not Legal in Massachusetts, Lawyers’ Coalition Says http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092104.html
Despite Past Statements, Former Gov. and Presidential Hopeful Romney Says He is Pro-Life http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010408.html
Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120905.html
I already have. Read post #314. Actually read it and think about it this time.
"Nor should it ever be lost sight of, that the government of the United States is one of limited and enumerated powers; and that a departure from the true import and sense of its powers is...the establishment of a new constitution. It is doing for the people, what they have not chosen to do for themselves. It is usurping the functions of a legislator, and deserting those of an expounder of the law."
“...every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss."
(So much for "emanations and penumbras...)
bump
Could you please show us which law it struck down?
The Court is striking down an act of the legislature, which they find unconstitutional. If the legislature's opinion was equal to the court's opinion on what is or what isn't unconstitutional, then the court wouldn't have stuck any law down at all, because the legislature, by virtue of taking an oath to the Constitution and passing the legislation, had already declared that they thought the act was constitutional.
Your understanding is based on the inference you gather from the decision, not on the actual words. In declaring its own right to refuse to apply an unconstitutional law, the court did NOT determine that the other two branches have no right of constitutional review. If anything, the court affirmed its own limitations under the Constitution. Law is only law if it is constitutional.
"A law repugnant to the constitution is void." -- Marbury vs. Madison
What happens, as in Massachusetts, when the court makes an unconstitutional decision? Are the other branches obliged to follow? According to Marbury, NO.
PREAMBLE.
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Chapter III, Article V
All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
I'm curious as to when you think the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gave their constitutional power over marriage issues to the Judicial Branch.
Butting right in, I don't agree with a word of it. Jefferson was something of an ideological nutter at times. He was fortunate to have Madison to restrain him from some of his worst impulses - - very fortunate.
If the courts did not have the final say on the meaning of legal words, then the legislature and/or executive could claim they meant anything they found convenient, and laws would cease to have teeth, and we would become a nation where the executive could claim the laws meant whatever it found convenient, without much check. Yes the legislature could then pass another law, subject to executive interpretation, and on and on, with impeachment and conviction being the only ultimate check. The Constitution of course would be rendered totally toothless, because if the courts can't rule that a statute is unconstitutional, then just who can?
On this matter, Marshall was totally wise and right, and Jefferson totally unwise and wrong.
I simply lay claim to the fact that the court is not the only one bound by the duty to understand, interpret and implement the Constitution. The other two "co-equal and co-sovereign" branches of government have an exactly equal duty to do so.
So do the people. As Josesh Story said, "...every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss."
Your position leaves NO check on the Judiciary.
You know you're winning the debate when all they can do is use the liberal tactic of name-calling.
I really don't see how their advocacy for judicial supremacy furthers conservatism and self-government.
In the matter we are discussing, he showed incredible foresight.
Let me ask you: Do you think this court tortured the plain meaning of words in the Goodridge case?
You mean courts are supposed to follow written constitutions? What a concept. I thought they can do whatever they want with impunity.
Touche.
When the rubber meets teh road, somebody has to have the final say. If you don't like the court's take, impeach, convict and remove, wait for replacements, or pass a new law or Constitutional amendment.
Right. That's working out really well, isn't it.
/s
Yes. The court made an errant decision. So now one needs to amend the state constitution. Frankly, as I have posted before, I would do away with state constitutions, except on governmental structural matters. All they do, is empower state court robes.
Actually, Rehnquist said that you can't impeach a judge for his decisions.
So, according to him, and you, the people of the United States have no recourse.
You just don't have a majority, or supra majority, depending on the context, that agrees with you, that is all.
And y'all accuse me of having radical views.
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.