Delegate Rules Give Thompson an Edge

Romney is still more conservative than Thompson

Oh puhleeze....who are you trying to kid?

Nor am I being combative. While I believe abortion is murder I see your position as unviable. Millions of women have had abortions since Roe v Wade. Where do you propose we house all these women after they’re arrested? Do we just build more women’s prisons? Where do we get the funding for that?

What about the women who at one point believed the lies perpetrated by the left that it was just “the product of conception” or “a mass of tissue”, but later came to understand the truth? Millions of women who have had abortions have repented and are now some of the most strident opponents of abortion. Would you have them arrested as well?

This guy is not just a flip flopper, he's a pathological liar.

Blue?...Red?, or Purple?
Abortion rights

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02

"Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society This can't continue."Speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother's Day Pioneer Valley Dinner, 5/10/07

Immigration reform

"With these 11 million people [here illegally], let's have them registered, know who they are....those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship."Lowell Sun, 3/30/06

"One simple rule: no amnesty.If that [Kennedy-McCain bill] is not a form of amnesty, I don't know what is."New York Times, 6/4/07

Gun laws

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."Romney in 2002 gov. debate, Boston Globe, 1/14/07

"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms."Boston Globe, 1/14/07

Amendment to ban gay marriage

"Mitt does not support it...As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary."Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02

"When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision."Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07

"No new taxes" pledge

"I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the commonwealth"Associated Press, 3/27/02

"Signing the pledge now sends a very clear message to those in Washington who have voted against tax relief and for tax hikes that such actions will never grow our regional and national economies."Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 1/5/07

Minimum wage

"I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation. I think the minimum wage is a good thing to have in our economy and I think it ought to be updated."Boston Globe, 10/17/94

"[T]he challenge with raising the minimum wage excessively is it is a hurt to those that are entering the work force, the very poor, those that are trying to get early jobs, get those first jobs."Associated Press, 7/25/06

Cutting Social Security

"I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."Boston Globe, 10/17/94

"Personal accounts would be a big plus."... [Romney]also said changing the retirement age could be considered, as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge.Union Leader, 6/7/07

Adoption non-discrimination

Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay and lesbian parents from adopting children through its social service agencies. The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption...Boston Globe, 2/17/06

"And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children... Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found 'right' of gay marriage."Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07

Stem cell research

[Romney]endorsed embryonic stem cell research, saying the controversial science might one day help treat his wife's multiple sclerosis...."I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research. I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch."Boston Globe, 6/14/02

"FACT: Governor Romney Opposes Using Taxpayer Money to Fund Embryo-Destructive Research."MittRomney.com A Record of Protecting Life

Bush tax cuts

Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program...In addition to refusing to endorse the president's tax cut, the governor surprised several people at the meeting by saying he is open to a federal increase in gas taxes.Boston Globe, 4/11/0

[Romney] said it was "absolutely critical" to renew tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. Letting them expire would result in a "massive tax increase" that would retard economic growth, Romney said.Detroit Free Press, 2/8/07

Reagan Republicanism

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."Boston Herald, 10/27/94

"Ronald Reagan is ... my hero. ... I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership."Boston Globe, 1/19/07 Desire to serve in Vietnam

"I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam..."Boston Herald, 5/2/94

"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."Boston Globe, 6/24/07

Oh, and of course, there's this...

Romney did not have to do anything. Neither he nor the legislature had been ordered to do anything. And, if they had, he would have been well within his rights to refuse based on separation of powers since the state constitution commits the definition for marriage to the legislature. What if the state Supreme Court had found that the tax rates in Massachusetts were not progressive enough and that this constituted a denial of equal protection. Would the governor then be justified in ordering his revenue department to begin assessing the higher rates? Remember, he has not even gotten an order from the Massachusetts Supreme Court to increase the tax assessments. In this case, Romney did not even wait for the order. He went ahead and issued his own executive order to the Clerks to issue the gay marriage licenses.

And what if he had waited? Wouldn’t the Massachusetts Supreme Court have issued the order? Perhaps. We will never know. But, had they done so, Romney would have been under no greater compulsion to obey such an order than he would be to raise taxes at the court’s order. The refusal would be based on the separation of powers doctrine, since both the the definition of marriage (and the levying of taxes)are legislative functions, committed to the legislature in the state constitution, and may not be usurped by the Supreme Court.

I think you need to study constitutional law. The Courts may not arrogate to themselves legislative or executive functions under the a tripartite system such as ours. In fact, the non-delegation doctrine even forbids the legislature from trying to delegate its powers under the Constitution to another branch. So the Massachusetts legislature could not even cede its authority to define marriage (or raise revenue) to the Supreme Court if it wanted to.

In a word, Romney would have been on very solid footing, constitutionally and politically, to refuse to obey an order, if in fact he had received one. He did not wait for the order. He went ahead and began to implement the Supreme Court’s declaratory judgment, which did not order anyone to do anything, and began ordering the licenses to be issued. He thus allowed gay marriage to become a fait accompli in Massachusetts, in spite of the fact that the Constitution commits this responsibility to the legislature. I am not going to repeat every argument I made on the other post, which I link to in post 31.

In Massachusetts, the state supreme court had issued what amounted to an advisory opinion. It had no power under the state constitution to enforce it, because the power to define marriage is vested in the legislature and the enforcement of any such laws is an executive branch function. Romney should have told the Court that he was powerless to act unless and until the legislature redefined marriage. But he precipitously began to order the issuance of the licenses. When a case involves the separation of powers between coequal branches, a completely different dynamic is at work. The Supreme Court is not interpreting the law, when it arrogates to itself authority committed by the Constitution to another branch. Show me a case that says this constitutes interpretation. I can show you many nondelegation cases, which forbid one branch from trying to delegate its functions to another.

You suggest that, if a citizen believes the state of Massachusetts is unlawfully issuing marriage licenses to gays, that citizen should sue. Unfortunately, the citizen would, in all likelihood, lack standing to bring such a suit.

I have a hard time understanding how you can say that others are making “contrite(?) arguments ../that show a general failure to comprehend how our government works.” Your post tells me you do not understand the Constitution, enumerated powers, the separation of powers, and constitutional interpretation (as opposed to infringement by one branch on the enumerated powers of another). (It really is not your fault. You suffer under the misapprehension that a Supreme Court (state or federal) is omnipotent, which is something you have been conditioned to believe by listening to the news. I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu. You might even try reading the Constitution of the United States from cover to cover once.) What is more disturbing is your candidate does not appear to understand the Constitution. I think that someone who aspires to take the oath, as President, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, should have done a little better job preserving and protecting the Massachusetts constitution than Mitt Romney did.

And I take umbrage at the fact, that having contributed to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Romney is now trying to recast himself as a defender of Marriage by promoting the FMA, which has no chance of passing any time in the next 30 years. (it could not even muster a majority in the Senate when the Republicans had 55 seats; It is decades away for a 2/3 majority) and further still from 3/4 of the state legislatures. This, in spite of the fact that when he had the power, not only did he do nothing, he actually moved to implement the opinion without even forcing the Supreme Court to issue an order. His actions have contributed to Massachusetts current status as the only state in America where gay marriage is legal.

BUMP!

FRED EXPLAINS SECURITY & PROSPERITY AT AFP!

FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:

>>>Millions of women have had abortions since Roe v Wade. Where do you propose we house all these women after they’re arrested? Do we just build more women’s prisons?<<<

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. No ex poste facto. If abortion becomes outlawed according to the rules of the land, you’re not guilty of something you did before the laws changed, and nor can you be tried for such.

Do you favor imprisoning mothers who abort their child?

>>> mostly pro life<<< Advantage: Romney

Give me a freaking break. The guy was a rabid pro-abortionist until he had his deathbed conversion.

You can spin until you drill yourself into the ground and it wont change the facts.

LOL.

You're talking to someone who insists Thompson's name is "Frederick."

Romney is still more conservative than Thompson, still more in-line with social conservatives, still more detailed in dealing with issues of defense, and has a far more superior grasp on economic issues.

Willard Myth Romney claims those things, but what kind of fool would believe him?

Oh...sorry.

>>What if the state Supreme Court had found that the tax rates in Massachusetts were not progressive enough and that this constituted a denial of equal protection. Would the governor then be justified in ordering his revenue department to begin assessing the higher rates?<<

No, because the tax laws were already in place. To change the tax rates would require legislative action. The marriage laws were all in place in Mass. No changes needed be made.

>>And what if he had waited? Wouldn’t the Massachusetts Supreme Court have issued the order? Perhaps. We will never know.<<<

Romney never needed an order. Once the stay expired, the Court’s ruling stood. Should he wait for an order? I frankly don’t see the point. The Dem legilsature would have just thrown him under the bus.

>>>I think you need to study constitutional law. The Courts may not arrogate to themselves legislative or executive functions under the a tripartite system such as ours. In fact, the non-delegation doctrine even forbids the legislature from trying to delegate its powers under the Constitution to another branch.<<

I have studied Constitutional law. And read the Mass Constitution. And the Mass marriage laws. A court is perfectly within its limits in striking down a law that it sees as un-Constitutional. Further, the court did no legislating whatsoever. It struck down an existing law and ruled that other laws should apply to all equally.

>>>In Massachusetts, the state supreme court had issued what amounted to an advisory opinion. It had no power under the state constitution to enforce it, because the power to define marriage is vested in the legislature and the enforcement of any such laws is an executive branch function.<<<

Right in part. But the legislature did define marriage. The laws were all in place. Read through Mass’ state laws regarding marriage. They’re all there, and all defined by the legislature. The Supreme Court ruled that one of these said rules violated the Mass Constitution—something perfectly in its power to do.

>>>This, in spite of the fact that when he had the power, not only did he do nothing<<<

*Rolls eyes* You obviously aren’t interested in the truth. Exactly what was Romney doing when he held rallies to allow the people to vote? Exactly what was he doing when he brought his case to the Mass judiciary that the Mass legislature was mandated to vote on the petition trying to bring a Constitutional vote before the people of Mass? Trying to force gay marriage on people? You really hurt your credibility with that nonsense. You know better, and yet you still play the dumb game for the point of what?

Listen, regarding the judicial philosophy that the Mass Supreme Court took in taking on that case, I won’t argue with you: I think they over-stepped judicial prudence in ruling as they did. They clearly went against what had been the will of the people and the Mass legislature in striking down that law. But as you know, when a court makes a ruling, it doesn’t necessarily do so on the grounds of enacting the will of the people.

>>>Willard Myth Romney claims those things, but what kind of fool would believe him?<<<

Obviously not one incapable of following a simlpe logical argument and incapable of recognizing the element of intent in telling a lie.

Can I get an a-men, brother?

Res ipsa loquitur:

American Liar

"Ronald Reagan was
adamantly pro-choice."

Ping

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907540/posts?page=54#54

Classic ad hominem.

Only two of the past 13 GOP presidential nominees since then — Gerald Ford in 1976 and Bob Dole in 1996 — have not been from the Sun Belt.

Eisenhower was from Kansas, which is hardly the Sun Belt. He may have been born in Texas, but he moved to Abilene, Kansas when he was 1 year old and spent his whole youth there. He retired to Pennsylvania.

Bush Sr. may have listed Texas as his home state, but had equally strong ties to the Northeast.

Furthermore, this article define both the west coast and the south as the 'Sunbelt', when they're two very different places.

In fact, the last 13 Republican presidential nominees have been:

Dewey (1948, New York)
Eisenhower (1952, 1956, Kansas)
Nixon (1960, 1968, 1972, California)
Goldwater (1964, Arizona)
Ford (1976, Michigan)
Reagan (1980, 1984)
Bush 1 (1988, 1992, Texas, but grew up in CT and owns summer home in Maine)
Dole (1996)
Bush 2 (2000, 2004, Texas)

That seems like pretty good geographical balance to me

I enjoyed your post in spite of the little shot you took at the end. It was better reasoned than some of the others, and it met the points head on. I disagree with most of your conclusions however, but let me tell you why, taking your points in seriatim:

“No, because the tax laws were already in place. To change the tax rates would require legislative action. The marriage laws were all in place in Mass. No changes needed be made.”

I disagree with you. The marriage laws were in place. The tax laws were in place. We agree on that. You say the tax laws would require legislative action, while the marriage laws would not. That is where we disagree. If the Supreme Court is merely adjusting the rates as in my hypo, no legislative action would be required as a procedural matter.(Of course, for a court to raise taxes is an outrageous ultra vires act, but procedurally, it would require no legislative action.) As far as the marriage laws are concerned, while they were in place, and the definition of marriage is a legislative prerogative, whether the age of consent, degrees of permissible consanguinity, child custody, alimony, inheritance etc.). To change the marriage laws to comport with this ruling would require legislative action because it is fairly complex to overhaul a state’s entire domestic relations and estate code. I think the best evidence that legislative action would be required is the Goodridge opinion itself, which gives the legislature 180 days to amend the code. I read this as a sheepish Supreme Court, realizing it had usurped a legislative prerogative, committing this task to the legislature, hoping the legislature would get them off the hook, because they recognized their own lack of procedural competence to effectuate the new “right” they had found. The legislature declined to do so, but Governor Romney did. He should have called the Court’s bluff, in my opinion.

“Romney never needed an order. Once the stay expired, the Court’s ruling stood.”

Here I take issue with you. This was a declaratory judgment. It is not self executing. Someone, presumably the plaintiffs, would have had to go back to the Court and ask for an order, which would have been nightmarish to fashion. If the legislature had passed a law ratifying Goodridge, the legislators would have had to face the people at the polls and many of them would be gone even in Massachusetts. I am not sure what you mean when you say the Dem legislature might have thrown him under the bus. If you mean to impeach him, I rather doubt it, because he would have held held the moral, political and legal high ground. If you mean that they would have said bad things about him, that is part of his responsibility.

“A court is perfectly within its limits in striking down a law that it sees as un-Constitutional. Further, the court did no legislating whatsoever.”

In fact, the Court did legislate here, using the rubric of the equal protection clause, which is a notorious vehicle for judicial activism. It was within its power to give the advisory opinion, but it could not craft a remedy without infringing on the prerogatives of another coequal branch. They really had an opinion, but no method to enforce it, because of the separation of powers. I believe that Governor Romney could have, and should have, told them that he could not implement this opinion without legislative action. I would be really curious to have seen what the Goodridge Court next move would have been. The bone that I have to pick with him on this issue is that he let them off the hook.