The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America
Part VIII - We the People . . . Still Have Authority
If the Governor is unwilling to enforce the law, the people must.
Governor Mitt Romney, referring to the above speech, said:
claimed during a Sunday morning television interview on FOX News Channel (during an inquiry about his plans to run for President of the United States), that:
However, as Chief Executive, Governor Romney is under a continuing constitutional and sworn duty, day after day, year after year, to comply with his oath and to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth regarding same-sex “marriage.” So far, however, he has chosen not to do so. He could be sued for mandamus. Sadly then, it was not the SJC, but rather Governor Romney’s acquiescence in the SJC’s unconstitutional conduct that has brought same-sex “marriage” to America. Without his complicity, not one fraudulent “marriage” license would ever have been issued.
The Governor’s duty is to uphold the law. The law has not changed in Massachusetts. He literally had to ignore the marriage statute as it currently exists to order the issuance of “marriage” certificates to same sex couples. The Governor’s acquiescence in this fraud, however, does not confer upon the Court the Constitutional power that it lacks.
When the SJC violates the Constitution, as it has here, if the government is unwilling to correct the illegality, it is the duty of the people to rectify it. "Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence -- people do." When the Governor fails to act to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, it is the duty of the people instead to take action and uphold them. “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Because the Goodridge decision exceeded the SJC’s constitutional authority, it is an illegal decision and that decision is, therefore, always open to review.
Whether the SJC set out to change the statute, the Constitution, or the will of the people is irrelevant. What is relevant is that neither the statute, nor the Constitution, nor the will of the people have been followed. The Court chose a course of action in an area in which they had no discretion. Because “[g]overnments are instituted among [the people,] deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the Court should not be allowed to thwart the will of the people. The people have the right, and cannot permit the SJC by refusing to comply with the explicit words of the Constitution, to frustrate that right to implement those words. When our very democracy is in jeopardy, the people must not permit themselves to be silenced by longwinded legal opinions, nor by political pressure to be “more tolerant and accepting” of a minority group and to suppress legitimate open debate of the issue.
The people ought never, as Abraham Lincoln said, “tolerate the violation of law by others.” This is especially true when those others are the very public officers entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing and sworn to uphold the law.
Thankfully, the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not remaining entirely silent. Some have begun to take action to correct the fraud from becoming entrenched precedent. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Massachusetts Constitution, the people have started the process to remove the four SJC judges responsible for this illegal behavior. "[A] fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . [is]`that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,"' The people have also begun implementing the initial stages for a citizen’s petition to amend the Constitution.
In addition, the people of the Commonwealth have the right, like the Governor, to disregard the SJC decision as non-precedent every single opportunity that arises. While acting morally and with the highest respect for the law, doing so will inevitably subject them to fines, endless litigation, and civil and criminal contempt. The people of other states in the United States, similarly, have an enormous obligation to protect their own citizens from being poisoned by this illegality. When cases arise that call upon those States to recognize the full faith and credit of Massachusetts law, they should truthfully exclaim the Goodridge case to be unlawful and the marriage certificates void and against public policy, not simply because of the judicial activism (in finding no rational basis), but equally as important because of the blatant disregard of the Constitution by the Supreme Judicial Court and by the Governor of Massachusetts. When Goodridge is cited as authority, people both within and outside of Massachusetts must know it is neither binding nor persuasive precedent because of its fraudulent genesis.
In the end, whether the Governor’s religion really is the religion of the Constitution, as he claims, will be determined not by his political rhetoric, but rather by whether he is able to look in the mirror and admit that he does not possess (and never did) the legal authority to issue even one same-sex marriage license; something the Emperor could never do. Regardless, what is vitally important is not his admission, but whether the people will let him get away with not making it. It will take honesty, courage, and a confession of naïveté for most of us to admit that there is an obvious and gaping lack of authority that makes same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts null and void.
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
Abraham Lincoln, The Lyceum Address
Governor Mitt Romney, referring to the above speech, said:
that Abraham Lincoln made [the Lyceum Address] when he was 28 years old. [Lincoln] said that America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others,
claimed during a Sunday morning television interview on FOX News Channel (during an inquiry about his plans to run for President of the United States), that:
there's no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make [the Constitution] my primary responsibility.
However, as Chief Executive, Governor Romney is under a continuing constitutional and sworn duty, day after day, year after year, to comply with his oath and to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth regarding same-sex “marriage.” So far, however, he has chosen not to do so. He could be sued for mandamus. Sadly then, it was not the SJC, but rather Governor Romney’s acquiescence in the SJC’s unconstitutional conduct that has brought same-sex “marriage” to America. Without his complicity, not one fraudulent “marriage” license would ever have been issued.
The Governor’s duty is to uphold the law. The law has not changed in Massachusetts. He literally had to ignore the marriage statute as it currently exists to order the issuance of “marriage” certificates to same sex couples. The Governor’s acquiescence in this fraud, however, does not confer upon the Court the Constitutional power that it lacks.
When the SJC violates the Constitution, as it has here, if the government is unwilling to correct the illegality, it is the duty of the people to rectify it. "Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence -- people do." When the Governor fails to act to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, it is the duty of the people instead to take action and uphold them. “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Because the Goodridge decision exceeded the SJC’s constitutional authority, it is an illegal decision and that decision is, therefore, always open to review.
Whether the SJC set out to change the statute, the Constitution, or the will of the people is irrelevant. What is relevant is that neither the statute, nor the Constitution, nor the will of the people have been followed. The Court chose a course of action in an area in which they had no discretion. Because “[g]overnments are instituted among [the people,] deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the Court should not be allowed to thwart the will of the people. The people have the right, and cannot permit the SJC by refusing to comply with the explicit words of the Constitution, to frustrate that right to implement those words. When our very democracy is in jeopardy, the people must not permit themselves to be silenced by longwinded legal opinions, nor by political pressure to be “more tolerant and accepting” of a minority group and to suppress legitimate open debate of the issue.
The people ought never, as Abraham Lincoln said, “tolerate the violation of law by others.” This is especially true when those others are the very public officers entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing and sworn to uphold the law.
Thankfully, the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not remaining entirely silent. Some have begun to take action to correct the fraud from becoming entrenched precedent. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Massachusetts Constitution, the people have started the process to remove the four SJC judges responsible for this illegal behavior. "[A] fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . [is]`that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,"' The people have also begun implementing the initial stages for a citizen’s petition to amend the Constitution.
In addition, the people of the Commonwealth have the right, like the Governor, to disregard the SJC decision as non-precedent every single opportunity that arises. While acting morally and with the highest respect for the law, doing so will inevitably subject them to fines, endless litigation, and civil and criminal contempt. The people of other states in the United States, similarly, have an enormous obligation to protect their own citizens from being poisoned by this illegality. When cases arise that call upon those States to recognize the full faith and credit of Massachusetts law, they should truthfully exclaim the Goodridge case to be unlawful and the marriage certificates void and against public policy, not simply because of the judicial activism (in finding no rational basis), but equally as important because of the blatant disregard of the Constitution by the Supreme Judicial Court and by the Governor of Massachusetts. When Goodridge is cited as authority, people both within and outside of Massachusetts must know it is neither binding nor persuasive precedent because of its fraudulent genesis.
In the end, whether the Governor’s religion really is the religion of the Constitution, as he claims, will be determined not by his political rhetoric, but rather by whether he is able to look in the mirror and admit that he does not possess (and never did) the legal authority to issue even one same-sex marriage license; something the Emperor could never do. Regardless, what is vitally important is not his admission, but whether the people will let him get away with not making it. It will take honesty, courage, and a confession of naïveté for most of us to admit that there is an obvious and gaping lack of authority that makes same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts null and void.
But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.
posted by Robert Paine, Esq. at 9:30 PM
<< Home