November 26, 2007

Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions — Index to Posts and ‘Cliff’s Notes’ Explanations

Filed under: Health Care,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:01 pm

This collection of links indexes the posts done in the past 5 days about Mitt Romney’s performance and record, in regards to his relationship with the courts and the legislative branch, in Massachusetts while governor there, particularly in dealing with two key issues that came up during that time.

- Nov. 21 — Part 1: Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare
- Nov. 21 — Part 2: Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage
- Nov. 23 — Part 3: Various Excerpts, Statements, and Comments
- Nov. 24 — Part 4: What’s Beck Got to Do with It?
- Nov. 25 — Part 5: The Next President and the Courts

For those who insist on the Cliff’s Notes version, here goes:

  • (Part 1) Mitt Romney did nothing to stop or restrict state-subsidized abortion in Massachusetts, and with the institution of RomneyCare, definitely expanded its scope, and may even have enshrined it into Massachusetts law for the first time.
  • (Part 2) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage in the Goodridge case was legally absurd and in and of itself against Massachusetts’ law and constitution. Even setting aside that point, an SJC ruling in Massachusetts requires that either legislation or a constitutional amendment be enacted for implementation to legally take place. No legislation or constitutional amendment was ever enacted, yet Mitt Romney implemented Goodridge anyway. He had no legislative direction, so he in fact did not have the authorization to go ahead with implementation. By doing so, he violated his own oath of office to uphold the Bay State’s constitution.
  • (Part 4) A 1988 US Supreme Court ruling in a labor-law and free-speech case shows that rulings by the Supremes are often not automatic without enabling legislation. Only a few states have implemented the ruling involved (Communications Workers of America v. Beck). Congress has passed no legislation, meaning not only that our president can refuse to carry out the ruling, in point of fact he must refuse.
  • (Part 5) The next president may have to defy Supreme Court rulings that unconstitutionally rely on foreign law or that are clearly and obviously in violation of the clear meaning of the Constitution itself. I believe that any of the Democrat nominees would, if elected president, handle such situations opportunistically, opting to enforce the ones they like (in violation of their oath of office), and refusing to enforce the ones they don’t. I hold hope ranging from a little to a lot that four of the five major contenders for the GOP presidential nomination might take up this likely crucial challenge. Based on his record in Massachusetts as described above and in the detail of these posts, I hold out no such hope for Mitt Romney.

I have brought back a BizzyBlog term from previous elections, namely the BizzyBlog Dealbreaker. A Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your current stands on the issues.” Romney’s handling of the subsidized abortion and same-sex marriage issues are each Dealbreakers. As such, I believe that he is unfit to be president.I am grateful to Gregg Jackson for his initial columns on these subjects, to both Gregg and his co-host Kevin Whalen of Pundit Review Radio and the Pundit Review Blog for their active discussions on these matters, and to John Haskins for his consultation and review. See Part 1 for links to the underlying columns, blog posts, and background info.

Share

5 Comments

  1. Great round-up of facts. I am going to e-mail your post to Duncan Hunter. I only hope he will pick up the mantle. If he does not, I can no longer afford to financially support him. (Yes, I have been supporting Duncan. He’s the only I see as fit for the office.)

    I hope your Thanksgiving was a very nice one. God bless you.

    Comment by Rosemary — November 27, 2007 @ 8:37 am

  2. Simplified Mitt…

    1. Mitt Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts on a pro-homosexual, pro-gun control and a pro-abortion agenda. 2. Is he that liberal? He resided over the Big Dig which killed several people, yet he left it under democrat control, and he imposed…..

    Trackback by Rosemary's Thoughts — November 27, 2007 @ 8:39 am

  3. PS. Could you please change your blogroll which has my old site, My Newz ‘n Ideas, to Rosemary’s Thoughts? ;) (Thank you.)

    Comment by Rosemary — November 27, 2007 @ 8:53 am

  4. #1 and #3, thanks and I changed the blogroll link.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 27, 2007 @ 9:29 am

  5. Note:

    I accidentally nixed NixGuy’s link, which is here:
    http://www.nixguy.com/?p=3280

    Comment by TBlumer — November 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.