There's a good discussion going on Bettnet.com about Romney's unconstitutional actions which began the fraudulent same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts. (See MassResistance for more on this.) Check out Bettnet.com. Here's just a small excerpt (from 10/20/06):
Robert,
One simple question, since you are telling us who support the [VoteOnMarriage] amendment that it is unnecessary. Who is going to rule on your case? - Sean
Robert Paine, Esq. replies:
Honest judges and if they are not honest or they are biased, we need to have the intestinal fortitude to use the other parts of the Mass Constitution which foresaw such illegal conduct and remove any public official who is unfit for office. Let’s say the SJC wants to involve itself in a cause concerning marriage. Let’s not acquiesce in their blatant violation of the plain words of the constitution: Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
The SJC therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction over that cause of action and thus has no legal authority to decide anything regarding that case.
Let’s say that Judge Margaret Marshall wants to sit on a case regarding same-sex “rights.” Her previous decision to engage in that battle as a partisan (accepting awards from the GLBT legal community), makes her unfit to be an unbiased judge on that case. She should have the honesty to recuse herself. We should have the courage to call her on her dishonesty if she does not willingly recuse herself.
It is fine for her to hold whatever beliefs she holds. It is not fine to claim to be unbiased when the overwhelming evidence is that she is very biased on this issue.
Let’s say the Governor had not been ordered by the SJC to do anything regarding marriage licenses. Let’s say he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of Massachusetts. Lets say the marriage law does not permit same-sex marriage (read Goodridge). Let’s say that the SJC never struck the marriage law and thus it continues to prohibit same-sex “marriage.” Lets say that the Constitution explicitly says that the citizens of the Commonwealth are bound by no law other than one passed by the legislature. Lets say that the legislature never changed the marriage law. Let’s say that neither the SJC nor the legislature could change the meaning of the word marriage by statute or fiat because that word exists in the Constitution and only the citizens of the Commonwealth have the legal authority to amend (change the meaning of) the Constitution through constitutional amendment procedures well laid out in the constitution. Lets say that despite all of this Governor Romney took it upon himself to violate the marriage statute which does not permit same-sex marriage by ordering town clerks and JP’s to violate the marriage statute and certify and solemnize marriages not permitted by the statute. What would you do?
No . . . it is actually a null and void act because it was done without authority AND additionally it is an impeachable act.
It is unacceptable to permit all three branches of government to ignore the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution.
Sean is there any case in which you could imagine where the actions of either the Judiciary, the Governor, or the Legislature are without actual legal authority? If so, what would you do in that situation? Simply accept it and move on? Hope it doesn’t happen again? What is the remedy? What is your solution. Like it or not that is the situation we are in right now and it is frightening.
The practical reason why the judges who will “hear our case” have the nerve to blatantly outright violate the constitution is because they know that most people are like you sean; too afraid to stand up and defend themselves.
-Robert Paine, Esq.
