National Review Endorses ‘Objectively Unfit Mitt’ Romney for President; Ann Coulter Is Almost Right

Here is the disgraceful betrayal.

Of course the word “Constitution” doesn’t appear in the endorsement. Given Objectively Unfit Mitt’s record in Massachusetts, including his campaign promise to violate his state’s constitution and his oath of office, how could it?

Ann Coulter wrote last week (third paragraph) that the National Review is “increasingly irrelevant.”

She’s almost right. “Almost completely” irrelevant is more like it.

This calls for carrying the entire “Mitt Romney Betrayal Collection” forward so readers new to the situation can see just how awful this call by the National Review is.

________________________________________________

The Mitt Romney Betrayal Collection

- Dec. 7 — (Re-Posted) The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney
- Dec. 6 — The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney
- Dec. 6 — The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President
- Dec. 5 — The Romney Same-Sex Marriage Deception Boiled Down
- Dec. 4 — Romney to Roll Out ‘The Speech,’ As He Questions His Own Timing
- Dec. 3 — Catch of the Day the Week Maybe the Month: Hugh Hewitt in Nov. 2003, on Goodridge and How Romney Should React
- Dec. 2 — Quote of the Day: Dean Barnett on the Need for Romney Explanations (with Index, Links, and Cliff’s Notes for ‘Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions’ Posts)
- Nov. 29 — Quote of the Day: Gregg Jackson on Mitt Romney (with Index, Links, and Cliff’s Notes for ‘Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions’ Posts)
- Nov. 27 — Mitt Romney ROTFLMBO Howlers of the Day (with Index and Links to Previous Posts)
- Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions: Nov. 26 - Index to Posts; Nov. 25 - Part 5 — The Next President and the Courts; Nov. 24 - Part 4 — What’s Beck Got to Do with It?; Nov. 23 - Part 3 — Various Excerpts, Statements, and Comments; Nov. 21 - Part 2 — Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage; Nov. 21 - Part 1 — Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare

HERE IS the “Cliff’s Notes” version of the Romney betrayals detailed at the “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” posts.

Index to “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” series:

- 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

Here are the Cliff’s Notes versions of the above posts, (Part 3 is excluded because it “only” has excerpts and quotes from elsewhere):

• (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. Also see Part 1 for links to the underlying columns, blog posts, and background info from Gregg Jackson, Kevin Whelan, and John Haskins.
• (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.”

Mitt Romney’s handling of the subsidized abortion and same-sex marriage issues are each Dealbreakers. As such, absent satisfactory explanations, he is objectively unfit to be president.