January 3, 2008

One More Time: Why Is It ‘Objectively Unfit Mitt’?

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:30 am

6PM Update: From WorldNetDaily coverage of this and other matters in “The Letter” from profamily leaders –

The Romney campaign repeatedly has declined to respond to WND requests for comment on such issues, including a failure to respond to multiple requests for a one-on-one interview in which the candidate would have been allowed to give his definitive perspective of the issues being raised.

Because he HAS no “definitive perspective” on these and other issues, except to hope that they aren’t brought up before the general voting public, or enough of it.


The following excerpts and slightly revises portions of two previous posts (here and here).

It demonstrates that Willard Mitt Romney’s extra-constitutional, oath-breaking actions relating to the imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts make him — objectively — unfit to serve as president.


Under Massachusetts’s Constitution, originally authored by John Adams, court rulings (or opinions) are not ‘obeyed’ by the legislature or the governor (or the entire executive branch), because judges cannot order the two elected branches around. Court rulings are ‘orders’ when issued to private individuals or corporations — IF the court has jurisdiction.

This is not arguable.

In fact, under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) didn’t even have the jurisdiction to take the Goodridge same-sex marriage case, and violated THEIR oaths of office by doing so, as the December 2006 Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders” pointed out (link is to a former PDF converted to HTML, with text but not all formatting intact, at BizzyBlog’s host):

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

“All causes of marriage shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts.

Again, this is not arguable.

Even the SJC, in its Goodridge ruling, acknowledged that it could only advise the state legislature to pass an enabling law within 180 days of its ruling.

The legislature didn’t pass a law, and has not done so to this day.

Enter Mitt “he promised to obey the court’s ruling“ Romney.

Even though there was no “ruling” to obey, only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

This is not arguable.

Yet Romney has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.

This is madness. It must be stopped.

Romney gave a speech last month about his (insert name of his religion) faith.

Understand this. I don’t care that Mitt Romney is a (insert name of religion).

I don’t care about what Romney has said, in isolation. I do care about what Romney has done, in comparison to what he has said. What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, all to keep a campaign promise, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Our country’s Founders would agree.

And that, folks, is also not arguable.


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.