A Miracle: Someone in the Media Gets It On Objectively Unfit Mitt

Kim Strassel didn’t write it herself as her own assessment, but she put a quote from someone else into her OpinionJournal.com column today that will do nicely in the circumstances:

They include people like Bonnie (who preferred not to use her last name), an accountant who turned out in frigid temperatures to support Rudy Giuliani at an event in Salem, N.H., and who demonstrated a critical knowledge of Mr. Romney’s record: “[He] allowed gay marriages in Mass[achusetts].“

Well, knock me out of my chair.

Thanks, Kim. Where have your fellow Old Media members been?

After oh-so-many months (actually years), it takes a business newspaper to prominently publish the truth (and an accountant to articulate it - ha).

Bonnie is exactly right.

That’s why Romney is Objectively Unfit Mitt.

If you’re on the home page, click on “more” for the boiled-down but sufficiently detailed recitation that explains it all.

++++++++++++++++++++

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.