Posted by
Phil E. on Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:15:19 PM
While this blog is mostly focused on the spiritual, psychological and
legal reasons you don't want Mormon Mitt Romney for President (he's
Mormon, so cannot truly support Christian values; he's in a cult; and he's sworn an oath to
his church that can conflict with an oath of office), there are other
reasons that Conservatives should reject Mitt Romney for President. In this
particular post, it's his view on the superiority of the judicial
branch of government.
Remember the October decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding homosexuality?
In that decision, the judges ordered, “[that] the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes
or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this
decision."
After
the decision, a lady called Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show and asked
about why the Legislature didn't simply blow off the court's illegal
"order," as occasionally has been
done in the past. Mr. Hewitt, a
Constitutional Law Professor - AND a lawyer, bound by oath as an officer of the court to uphold the court (see how subtly these oaths can affect your thinking?) - Mr. Hewitt said that wouldn't be right, and cited
Mitt Romney agreeing, claiming the rule of law.
Wrong.
I'm no Con law professor, but it seems to me that a government of checks and balances is a government
managed by exception. That is, in a system of government like ours, no one branch of government can tell another branch what to do, unless that authority is specifically delegated in the Constitution. (As where
Congress can ordain and establish (or unordain and de-establish) inferior courts.) Rather, EACH branch of government has the authority to reject what other branches tell it to do.
At this point, law professors will run to
Marbury v. Madison, citing Justice Marshall, who proclaimed the most distinctive
power of the Supreme Court was the power to declare an
Act of Congress unconstitutional. (Interestingly, they would be right to run to this to prove my point that one branch cannot tell another branch what to do unless that authority has been specifically delegated, for that's what the ruling said.)
I'm no Chief Justice, but I maintain that is NOT a unique power. Rather, ALL the branches, their officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution (as opposed to oathes to their church), have the power to declare any instruction from any other branch unconstitutional. Fortunately,
President Jackson agreed in his veto message regarding the Bank of the United States:If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this
act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this
Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for
itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public
officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he
will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by
others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the
Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of
any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or
approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before
them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more
authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the
judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The
authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to
control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative
capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their
reasoning may deserve.
Amen? So, for example. the New Jersey Legislature COULD tell the New Jersey Supreme Court they are out of order.
Thankfully I'm not the only one who sees this or questions Mitt Romney. From
The Constitutional Freedom Foundation a Mormon friendly site,
Recently the Supreme Court of Massachusetts effectively forced gay
marriage onto their state through their “interpretation” (i.e. judicial
amendment) of their state constitution. What if the Governor had refused
to enforce that ruling citing his own oath of office to support and defend
the Massachusetts state constitution? Couldn't’t he have done so in good
conscience? What could the court have done about it? Nothing. Couldn't’t
the fact that the state Supreme Court depends upon its coordinate branches
of state government to enforce its rulings be viewed as a purposeful
political mechanism to check abusive judicial power?
Really, the courts are simply usurping power to push their political agendas, the very thing our system of checks and balances was supposed to protect. Others have said it better than I could.
See this Townhall blog, Irksome.How can we check the Judiciary if no one stands firm and ignores them? Mitt Romney didn't and won't. Interestingly, his religion is a religion of law.
I seem to recall the Pharisees loved the rule of law. Jesus offered the rule of love. We need someone who will stand up for what's right.