Romney Joins 2008 Presidential Race

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

RE: Romney Joins 2008 Presidential Race

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I just put forth facts from the constitution itself. And how is it right and honorable to do what is wrong? He would not have been breaking the law. Please show me such a law before making such an assertion. If the courts can make up laws on the fly, or by just assuming that they exist, we have totally lost representitive government.
Here is the appropriate part of the state constitution giving him the right to veto legislation:

Article II. No bill or resolve of the senate or house of representatives shall become a law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the governor for his revisal; and if he, upon such revision, approve thereof, he shall signify his approbation by signing the same. But if he have any objection to the passing of such bill or resolve, he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto, in writing, to the senate or house of representatives, in whichsoever the same shall have originated; who shall enter the objections sent down by the governor, at large, on their records, and proceed to reconsider the said bill or resolve. But if after such reconsideration, two thirds of the said senate or house of representatives, shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the legislature, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of the members present, shall have the force of a law: but in all such cases, the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the persons voting for, or against, the said bill or resolve, shall be entered upon the public records of the commonwealth.

I have provided facts. Please provide facts to back up your assertions. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that he could have vetoed such legislation. Making claims to the contrary in a news article does not rise to the level of law.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

Interesting that the section you quoted is under "Part of The Second. Chapter 1. The Legislative Power. Section 1. The General Court."

Here is what comes right after that Article, which references several Amendments [And in order to prevent unnecessary delays, if any bill or resolve shall not be returned by the governor within five days after it shall have been presented, the same shall have the force of a law.] [See Amendments, Arts. I, XLVIII, LIV, LXIII, sec. 5, and XC, sec. 1.]
When looking under "Part of the Second. Chapter II. Executive Power Section I. The Governor." I see nothing that empowers a veto by the Governor.

It appears the governor can return something to the legislative branch for modification one time, and after it has been reconsidered by the legislature if voted in the affirmative by 2/3's of the members present becomes law... with or without the governors signature. Further reading indicates the governor only has 10 days in which to return something for reconsideration to the legislature. Now, here is where I think the thumbscrew came in. The Supreme Court put a deadline on the legislature to correct something they found as against the state's constitution. The legislature apparently went back to the court in that time frame to ask if civil union was okay. The court said no.

I don't know, maybe that iteration was the result of the legislature sending something up to the Governor and the Governor exercising the right to object and return it for reconsideration. That would make sense as to why the Executive Branch had no further way of preventing the bill from becoming law.

Anyone have more accurate information as to the timeline of events?

arbilad · Head Chef

Look further. The "General Court" is another name for the legislature. I made the same mistake. So there's still nothing in there giving the supreme court any power whatsoever over a veto.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Look further. The "General Court" is another name for the legislature. I made the same mistake. So there's still nothing in there giving the supreme court any power whatsoever over a veto.

That is true. But what I was trying to emphasize was that it doesn't appear the Governor actually has a veto in the sense we understand veto (e.g. "Alright! Everybody out of the pool! Party's over!"

). So, since it does not appear the Governor has the power vested in him to issue a final veto to stop a bill dead in it's tracks, there would be no need for the supreme court to have the power to over ride such a veto.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Shucks! Romney was in town yesterday but it was unannounced.

arbilad · Head Chef

They may not have used the word "veto" back then, but it amounts to the same thing: look at the wording. If the legislature doesn't have a two thirds vote in both bodies, then the bill is dead. If they do get that vote, it then becomes law. That's how a veto works. There's nearly identical wording in the US Constitution, as included below. Do you now doubt that the US President has veto power?
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

But, I think I've said my piece. I'll just summarize and then drop it.

Basically, other than assertions in news articles, there is no evidence that any law compelled Romney not to veto the gay marriage legislation. I have presented sufficient evidence to prove that he has the power to veto and that there are no such limitations on said power in the Massachusetts state constitution. His other actions in support of homosexuals support the assertion that he did not want to prevent the adoption of said legislation. This supports my belief that Romney is much more liberal than he wishes to appear, and that he merely tells each group what they want to hear.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, arbi, you said all that before. But it doesn't establish fact any more than what I said. Neither of us are experts. Unless it can be shown that the governor of Massachusetts actually does have a final veto power, it is probably not fair to say Romney did nothing by not exercising it. He can't exercise what he doesn't have. And, by the time the legislature brought the bill to him, it may have been too late (based on the deadline the court gave them) to send it back for reconsideration... the courts ruling would have become defacto law instead, which may have been what happened in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_Massachusetts

Do you have evidence that Romney actually signed a bill into law? I haven't seen anything to support he did yet.

I had a nice timeline going here based off major newspaper articles, but hit the wrong button and it is gone, so I'll rebuild as best I can from memory...

From what I've seen in major newspapers' articles, November / December 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave the legislative branch six months to remedy it. During that time, the Senate asked the Court if civil unions would be acceptable. The court said no. So, the only course left for the legislature was to create a law that legalized same sex marriages. Upon the ruling by the court, Romney immediately set to task of working with others to create a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage that would go before the people for vote. Problem here is that the high courts ruling became defacto law if the legislature did nothing or did not meet the deadline, which apparently under state law is what happens. Was a stay asked for? I don't know. I would imagine that the AG office, which was working with Gov Romney on the legal options available to the Executive Branch, would have asked for it if state law allowed. If it did and they made it, it is safe to presume a stay was denied.

For an amendment to make it to the general election ballot, it has to be approved by 1/4 of the legislature (or 50 members) in two consecutive sessions. By March 2004, the Constitutional Convention had not even come up with a amendment they could vote on in the legislature, and the legislature let it die. Had it gotten past that and approved twice, the soonest it would have hit the voters was 2006, which is two years after the courts ruling / legislature's compliance to ruling had become defacto law. July 2006, the legislature finally has an amendment language they can work with, or so it seemed. But, in order to get it on the 2008 ballot, it has to be voted on for approval. Again, 1/4 of the legislature members have to approve it.

http://www.nysun.com/article/45800
As of the 12/27/06, it had not been put to a vote in the first of the two required sessions. Romney and others try suing to make the court force the legislature to vote, but the court, who had ruled against those trying to keep an amendment from being added to the ballot if it passed the legislature's rules, said they could only remind the legislature of it's duty in relation to a constitutional convention... not force them to do it.

http://www.mafamily.org/home.html
http://www.mafamily.org/Hot%20News/01-03-07.pdf
1/3/07, a vote is finally held and 61, then 62 members of the legislature vote in favor of the amendment. 50 were all that was needed, so it passes the first round. It now needs to pass in the current 2007 session to go on the ballot in 2008.

You know, the more I read about this, the more impressed with Romney I am. Too many people are too willing make him the scape goat in this sham of legislative and judicial abuse of power.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I think the burden is on you, Arbi, because you're making a claim against what he has claimed. You're the one defaming his record with accusations that he did nothing to stop gay marriage in his state, and you're the one claiming that he's responsible for spreading a great evil. That's just as spurious a set of accusations in regards to his stance, as say the Evangelicals who don't want to vote for him because he's a mormon, and then as evidence claim that mormons are evil because of this that or the other. They make the assertions that we're evil, because of things like polygamy, or make up some nonsense about some different Christ... etc...

If you don't like the guy, fine. But I think in order to make accusations about how he'll somehow promote gay marriage if he's the President, you should be willing to back that up better than you've done. I really see no reason for mitt to make this his issue. It's the people who make these sorts of things an issue. I doubt there's a single conservative in any party that can't be caught on this same sort of legal trap... all to create false impressions about a candidate's position.

I think Cat's put up a decent set of articles and links pointing out that he's got a record opposing the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals.

As a president, he would have to work with his supreme court, and I bet he's more than ever more likely to choose constitutionalist judges, that don't legislate from the bench, than any of the other candidates out there right now... because of this whole debacle. I remember hearing him speak about the issue back in the time, and how frustrated and angry he was with the court, and how he had little recourse due to the way the court is composed. If the Supreme Court of the US deems something you put out into law as illegal, you have to abide that decision. There is no check on the supreme court, save the righteousness of the court itself. This has always been a fly in the constitutional ointment of checks and balances.

Best regards,

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

I said I'd drop it, but I wanted to make one last point:
and I bet he's more than ever more likely to choose constitutionalist judges, that don't legislate from the bench, than any of the other candidates out there right now.

You might lose that bet. Did you read the article I linked to? Apparently he's appointed many more liberal judges than conservative ones as governor, and some of those were homosexuals.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Sorry, I missed the bit where you said you were dropping it. I'm under the weather today and don't have all my wits about me.

I was just trying to establish a timeline for better understanding what may have been the context in which everything happened. The one thing I did miss was any mention that Romney had actually signed it into law. Not saying he did or didn't. I just haven't seen anything one way or the other.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Sigh... So what are you saying, Arbi? Apparently, he's a closet gay-loving mormon?

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

If Arbi isn't satisfied with the Republican party in general, I really doubt he is going to be happy with a relatively moderate Republican candidate, be he LDS or not.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Back to the fact.

Romney is against homosexual marriage. (period).

Folks can argue inuendo until the cows come home, but Romney is pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Scott Bradley’s (CP Candidate for US Senate in 2006) response to Mitt Romney’s real record……

For sometime now, I have been providing the following information to people who ask my opinion about Mr. Romney.
---Scott Bradley

Mitt Romney the Chameleon

(Born 12 March 1947, so he was 47 years old during the Senate Race of 1994)

The Traditional Marriage and Values Facade

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wrote a friendly letter to the pro-homosexuality Log Cabin Republicans on Oct 6, 1994 to ask for their endorsement in his election effort. Read the letter in its entirety on the internet, or peruse the excerpts below. And as you’re reading this, keep in mind that his opponent was none other than ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy.

"I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the US Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. …Your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.

"…As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

" I am not unaware of my opponents [sic] considerable record in the area of civil rights… For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.

"We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s "don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue" military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…"

Romney’s true colors in the matter of gay marriage were shown in his handling of the gay marriage issue while he was governor of Massachusetts. While trying to (superficially) appear supportive of the effort to derail the Massachusetts implementation of gay marriage, he did nothing to stop it. As the Executive of the State, he could have stopped the whole process by standing with the (correct) position that he would NOT implement an illegal order by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow gay marriage [*see footnote]. He also declined to exert the power of his office, or his personal support, in the effort to place the "Marriage is between a man and woman" amendment on the ballot in Massachusetts. As a result, in spite of the citizens ofMassachusetts having obtained the number of signatures required to gain ballot access for the proposed amendment, the amendment was not placed on the ballot, and the people were not able to vote to prevent gay marriages in Massachusetts.

The Abortion Facade

Following are Romney’s words on abortion: (Comments made in October 1994 televised debate with Ted Kennedy—Entire video comments are available on the internet—watch him say the words):

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And we should sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."

A Reagan Republican?

And here's Romney on the Reagan perspective (again, comments from the October 1994 debate):

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Clinton’s Healthcare Plan Revisited?

In addition, Governor Romney’s (successful) socialistic efforts in Massachusetts to meddle with healthcare are offered as a template for a plan to socialize the entire Nation’s healthcare.

The "True Conservative" Facade

Mitt Romney now says that he is a "true conservative," that his views have "matured" from the erroneous positions he took when he was younger (47 years old and he didn’t know that it is wrong to kill babies, or to foster the destruction of society by "main-streaming" the gay agenda to destroy the God-ordained institution of marriage????).

Is true "repentance" manifested by a flippant "Oh, I don’t believe that anymore" statement, or is it appropriate that something more deep and heartfelt be offered? Was it a "light" thing that millions of babies continued to die in the decades Mr. Romney fervently believed that it was right to kill unborn children (which belief, by his own admission, even pre-dates the abominable Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision)? It has been said: "To every forgiveness there is a condition. The plaster must be as wide as the sore. The fasting, the prayers, the humility must be equal to or greater than the sin. There must be a broken heart and a contrite spirit. There must be ‘sackcloth and ashes.’ There must be tears and genuine change of heart." (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg. 353)

Due to his history of promoting himself in whatever manner he deems necessary to obtain votes, perhaps we may assume that he would say anything he needed to say in order to get elected. This nation is in desperate need of men and women of character who will stand with principle to preserve everything we cherish.

Principled Leadership Needed

The words of Gordon B. Hinckley ring in our hearts:

On pages 170 and 171 of his marvelous little book, "Standing for Something," Gordon B. Hinckley lamented the current political state of affairs, saying:

"We are involved in an intense battle. It is a battle between right and wrong, between truth and error, between the design of the Almighty on the one hand and that of Lucifer on the other. For that reason, we desperately need men and women who, in their individual spheres of influence, will stand for truth in a world of sophistry. I have lived long enough now to know that many political campaigns, for example, are the same. I have heard again and again the sweet talk that leads to victory but never seems to be realized thereafter. We need moral men and women, people who stand on principle, to be involved in the political process. Otherwise, we abdicate power to those whose designs are almost entirely selfish.

"Great leaders are willing to speak for virtue, for moral standards in a world where filth, sleaze, pornography, and their whole evil brood are sweeping over us as a flood. They will stand up for integrity in the workplace, at home, and indeed anywhere it is called for. We don’t have the luxury of retreating to our private cloisters and pursuing only our special private interests. Strong voices are needed. The weight of our stance may be enough to tip the scales in the direction of truth and right."

[*footnote] The Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to create legislation which allowed gay marriage. TheMassachusetts legislature and the governor meekly complied with this illegal order. The courts are not empowered with authority to order such an action.

An example of an appropriate response may be found early in the history of the United States: When US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall handed down a decision (regarding relocating Indians from Georgia) with which President Andrew Jackson disagreed, Jackson is said to have commented: "Marshall has made his decision—now let him enforce it." Marshall’s edict died.

This succinctly captures the fact that the Supreme Court is not in any way preeminent to the Executive Branch. They are constitutionally on an equal footing. Each has specific assigned duties, each has its "realm" of duty and power beyond which it may not constitutionally stray. The Founding Fathers of this Nation wisely divided and sub divided power to prevent usurpation and tyranny from destroying the liberty of the land. The Court has no authority to order the Executive (or the Legislature) to take an action that the Court requires. The Court has no enforcement authority, and it is not empowered as a legislature which may create law. The reach of the Court is only as far as the Executive will enforce it. Most Americans, from the "man-on-the-street" to the highest officers in the land, have forgotten (or ignored) this essential constitutional check and balance against power-mongers. All who hold office must operate under this limited grant of power, and ALL office-holders took an oath to uphold this constitutional mandate.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court falsely found within the Massachusetts Constitution the "right" of gay couples to be united in marriage, and thereby "ordered" that Massachusetts law be altered to allow it. John Adams, a wonderful statesman with a solid understanding of the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this Nation is founded, was the principle author of the Massachusetts Constitution. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson (see "The Writing of Thomas Jefferson," vol. XIII, page 293), John Adams notes that the general principles upon which the Nation’s independence was won, and upon which liberty is based, is Christianity (he notes that those principles are "eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature..."). John Adams certainly never intended the licentious license which the Massachusetts Supreme Court took with his words.

Governor Mitt Romney could have, and should have, ignored the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and if the legislature had been so foolish as to comply with the illegal Supreme Court edict, he could have, and should have, vetoed it.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, great lundbaek, but in all that no one has yet proved that the office of Governor in Massachusetts has the vested power to veto any bill dead in it's tracks. Nor did any of that provide evidence that Romney actually signed anything into law concerning a bill proactively legalizing it.

For what it is worth, we can't just automatically assume Federal procedure (and what we perceive to be Federal procedure) is what a State's procedure is.

I will, until shown otherwise, assume that the current situation in Massachusetts came about as a result of the State's legislature not actually creating a law to accomodate the State's Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that said a ban on same sex marriage was not consitutional within the six month time frame they attached to the mandate given to the legislature to "fix" the problem.

Some of the things you have cited from Scott Bradley's spin based description are simply not true.

arbilad · Head Chef

Okay, great lundbaek, but in all that no one has yet proved that the office of Governor in Massachusetts has the vested power to veto any bill dead in it's tracks.

I am well and truly mystified by this, Cat. I quoted the section of the Massachusetts state constitution saying that a governor could send the bill back to the legislature, with objections. Unless they came up with a two-thirds vote, the bill was dead. The language in the US constitution granting the president that power is nearly identical (and I also quote it to demonstrate such). That proves conclusively the right of the governor to veto. It doesn't use the word veto, but it describes the exact mechanism.

So, Cat, I am simply stumped how you can say it's not proven when the pertinent section of their constitution has been quoted.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I thought you were letting this one drop, Arb? :)

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I thought you were letting this one drop, Arb? :)

--Ray

You are right, Ray, that had been my intention, and you'll notice I'm no longer arguing the main point. But I am honestly puzzled about Cat's statement. Frequently when communicating with someone you both think that the other guy is saying something that he actually isn't. It seems to me that Cat is saying that there has been no evidence that the Mass governor has the power to veto, and I feel that I have proven that point beyond any reasonable doubt. I am therefore interested in whether he is actually saying something else, or whether there's something I'm missing, or whether Cat believes something that, to my mind, is in total opposition to the facts.

I promise I'll try to stay out of the main discussion.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

{Dana Carvey doing George Bush Sr.} Gonna stay the course... {/Dana Carvey doing George Bush Sr.}

I'm not saying the constitution does not allow for the Executive Branch to return something for review and reconsideration. That is not the same thing as a drop dead final veto though. That is pretty clear from the verbage in the constitution there. The Governor gets to return to the legislative any bill it presents for reconsideration one time only. If after reconsideration the legislature still votes for the bill, the Governor does not have the right to veto it. Also, there seems to be a time limit in place that if the Governor does not return for reconsideration (and ergo does not sign it), it becomes law automatically.

No one has yet provided evidence that a bill was presented to the Governor in the first place. If none was presented, Romney as Governor did not have the opportunity to return it for review. Perhaps they did, and the return for reconsideration was to redirect it towards civil unions, which the court then stated was not acceptable to meet the ruling. Even if this is what occured, there has been no evidence presented he actually signed it into law. The ruling and the laws stated that if a law was not in place within the 6 months to proactively create the law, the ruling became defacto law. I think this is what happened, not a bill being signed into law.

Show evidence that he actually signed a bill that legalized same sex marriage, not evidence that after the ruling became law by default he enforced the law of the land. Enforcing the law of the land is the governor's sworn oath. Some may feel these details are splitting hairs. But they are not. It is important to have the exact details before placing any blame for a law that has come about by the wicked wresting the law.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 15:33, 2007-03-07

arbilad · Head Chef

Ok, I can see your point regarding vetoes. I still don't agree with you, but I can see your point.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I would also suggest Lundbaek that you examine the nature of the group Log Cabin (the gay conservative group) republicans. Were they advocating a redefinition of marriage? I've heard representatives from that group speak out before and I always thought they were against the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couple. Though i suppose opinions range, I am curious if the issues to which Romney addressed them had anything to do with same sex marriage. The article appears to be constructed in a sort of bait-n-switch tactic... like a lot of antimormons use to justify antimormon bigotry... quote something from brigham young, generally out of context, and then reinterpret that context to juxtapose it with your commonsense position you advocate. Not to mention the evident attempt to create guilt by association, which is another antimormon tactic (Joe Smith was a money digger!

Romney said nice things to gay people!!! Oh NO!! )...

Bestest regards...

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 16:03, 2007-03-07

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Smith was a money-digger!!!