Dylan DeSilva, the young man who founded Cape Cod Cares for the Troops, continues to impress with his tireless dedication to the men and women in uniform. I’ve said it many times in the past, on the blog and on the radio, this is the most impressive young man I’ve ever met.
Dylan recently made another trip to Washington DC to visit with wounded troops. He went to Bethesda Naval Hospital and also attended a Wounded Warrior Reception. Dylan is planning yet another support the troops rally on Cape Cod, this time in Provincetown. Having attended one of Dylan’s events in the past, it is really a sight to see.
Sunday December 2nd from 12:30 to 3:30.
The Provinctown Schools wanted to host a rally for Cape Cod Cares for the Troops, so together we have planned another great rally. The Opening Ceremony will be at 1:00, followed by a few guest speakers, music, send a few video message to the troops, write out a Christmas Card to be sent in the care packages, free face painting/tatoos for the kids and of course we will be accepting
items for care packages!!! Be there and be part of our
“Cape Cod Supports You” photo, this photo will be sent in all our Christmas Care Packages.We hope to see you there and if you would like to help or participate in anyway please email me. Thanks again for all your support.
From,
Dylan and everyone at Cape Cod Cares for the Troops
Click here to watch Dylan honored by the Boston Celtics for all of his hard work and dedication.
New York Sun
Collapse of Rail, Subway Strike Is a First Success for Sarkozy
President Sarkozy of France is on the verge of a breakthrough in his ambitious plan to wean his country off the restrictive working practices he believes stand in the way of national prosperity…
…The collapse of support for the strike by individual rail workers marks the first success in what Mr. Sarkozy considers the key goal of his presidency, the abandonment of expensive entitlements and special conditions for public sector workers, including generous early retirement and pension benefits for half a million rail workers, which he believes make France uncompetitive.
There is a tremendous lesson here for US presidential candidates from both parties. The public at large wants leaders who take a strong stand and then stay true to it despite the vitriol thrown at them by opponents. That is leadership. More times than not, a strong politician will win the battle.
Who among the candidates running for president can claim that quality?
Rudy Giuliani, he’s the one guy running for president who can say, yea, I did that. He can legitimately make the case that he had a vision for New York City and implemented it, over continuous and often vicious criticism. He did the same thing as US attorney against the mob. That’s not to say that there are not other concerns about a potential Giuliani presidency, but on the issue of leadership and ability to withstand withering criticism and controversial decisions, he’s proven he’s up to the task.
Barack Obama on the other hand, has demonstrated that he’s not up to the task,
Despite the incredible turn around in Iraq, congressional Democrats are still angling for ways to ensure defeat, not for our enemy, but for the United States. The people leading the party in this new century bear no resemblance to the people who made the party great in the last.
You have to look no further than the alienation of Joe Lieberman for evidence of how far left they have gone off the rails. Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, this type of strong Democrat is no longer welcome. Worse, they are villified.
As a former Democrat, I am saddened by the intellectual rot that has become the norm for national party leaders.
Listen to this speech on the 44th anniversary of JFK’s death. Close your eyes, can you imagine any Democrat alive today who can measure up?
Our friend Tom Blumer from Bizzy Blog thoroughly rebuts the claim that Mitt Romney had no other choice but to enforce the “decision” of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts when they issued the Goodridge decision which has been said to have “legalized gay marriage.” In fact, Tom demonstrates that it was not the MSJC who imposed “gay marraige” on Massachusetts citizens (even though the court acted unconstitutionally as well) but was Mitt Romney himself who in ordering the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same sex marriage ceremonies violated his oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.
Thanks again to Tom Blumer of Bizzy Blog for this outstanding analysis!
Tom pulls together a plethora of documentation and comes to the following conclusion:
Romney had marriage license certificates changed from “Husband†and “Wife†to “Person A†and “Person B†anyway. He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
He “ordered the town clerks, even ones with religious conscience concerns, to solemnize the marriages.†He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
In these and other actions, he “acquiesced in the SJC decision and actively authorized same-sex ‘marriage.’†He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
It is thus clear, again regardless of how one feels about the issue itself, that same-sex marriage certificates issued in Massachusetts under the Romney regime have been issued without requisite legal authority to do so (i.e., a real law voted on by the legislature and signed by the governor), and are, by definition, void.
So not only did Mitt Romney not have the required legislative authority tp implement Goodridge, the “ruling,†on its face, is objectively and irretrievably constitutionally flawed. He had a constitutional duty to the state’s citizens to ignore the “ruling,†and he failed in that duty.
And yet, somehow, Mitt Romney is considered A-OK by “conservatives†who clearly should know better.
Our friend and past guest on our radio show Tom Blumer, proprietor of the award winning, Bizzy Blog, has been intimately involved in our ongoing discussion on the radio and on this blog with regard to Mitt Romney’s candidacy and specifically as it pertains to:
1. Whether the former governor Romney was just “just following the decision of the Court” in the Goodridge decision that “legalized gay marriage” or whether he was actually subverting the law by ordering Justices of the Peace and other town clerks and state officials to perform same sex marriage ceremomies even though the original marriage statute (ch 207) had not been changed by the legislature and did not allow for same sex marriages.
2. Whether the former governor was just “following the law” when he signed his healthcare plan legislation (Commonwealth Care) that included tax subsidized abortions on demand with a $50 co-pay or whether he had the opportunity to veto the bill and ask that the abortion provision be removed from it (since at that time he claimed to be “pro-life”).
3. Whether the judiciary has the constitutional authority to “strike” or “suspend” any law in Massachusetts. (Article XX says no)
Tom has done a wonderful job in shedding some much needed clarity around these issues which is the reason that I believe Tom is the prototypical “New Media Journalist.” Here it is:
Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions: Part 1 — Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare
Yesterday was a relatively light posting day, at least in terms of verbosity, because I’ve been watching a fascinating and important e-mail debate unfold primarily between Gregg Jackson and Kevin Whelan, the co-hosts of Pundit Review radio and the Pundit Review blog. Along the way, there has been some input from myself and at least a couple of other more knowledgeable folks.The subjects started out being Mitt Romney’s inclusion of abortion coverage in Commonwealth Care, aka RomneyCare, and Romney’s ability or inability to act on the Massachusetts court’s Goodridge ruling “legalizing†same-sex marriage. In the process of vetting these two matters, broader issues about the relationships between the branches of government have come to the fore.
The broader issues strike me as awfully important, and I’ll try to develop them…
I’ll try to summarize where I believe things stand on these matters, with the obvious disclaimer that I don’t know Massachusetts law inside and out.
The bedrock issue is how much power the courts have.
Haskins believes that, at least in Massachusetts, the courts can only advise. I’m not kidding. He cites as precedent how slavery actually became illegal in the state.
When the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts declared the practice of slavery to be a violation of the state’s constitution, it only had the power to set free one slave, the slave on whose behalf legal action was brought. The only way to make slavery illegal, as opposed to “merely†unconstitutional, was for the legislature to pass, and the governor to sign, a law proscribing slavery. Until that happened, the only way for an individual slave to be freed was for him or her to bring a new legal action. If the legislature had dithered for 100 years (I don’t know how long it actually took; my guess is not long), the case-by-case approach would have been the only one available.
Haskins is clearly historically correct.
There is no reason to believe that constitutional conditions in Massachusetts have changed since.
Here is what that means to the issues at hand.
The first is the presence of abortion in RomneyCare.
In 1981 and 1997, the SJC “ruled†(i.e., based on the above, “stated its beliefâ€) that a state-subsidized plan must offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.†But wait a minute. Why was the 1997 “ruling†necessary? Is it because, as I suspect, the legislature never passed an actual law requiring such coverage in the intervening 16 years, and the Executive Branch and bureaucracy “just did itâ€? If so, and if no actual law has gone on the books in the 10 years since the second “ruling,†there is no legal requirement to offer these services, and there will not be until the Legislature passes a real law, signed by the Governor, containing such a mandate. Without such an actual law (regulations written by bureaucrats don’t count), the only recourse for Medicaid patients requesting abortions should have been individual court actions. If the legislature is and has been too lazy, or too afraid, to get off its collective butt to pass a law the SJC has “ruled†is needed, too bad, so sad. Those who are impatient with all of this and want legislators who will actually do something to pass such laws have always had recourse. They’re known as elections.
This is also interesting background on the issue. “Robert Paine” Esq. is the foremost legal authority in the country on how Mitt Romney illegally imposed “Gay Marriage.” His analysis has been affirmed as legally sound by numerous constitutional lawyers and law professors. Here it is.
And here is the Massachusetts highest law- the Massachusetts Constitution.
Gregg, I feel compelled to respond to your latest anti-Romney post. The kindest thing I can say about the notion that it was Mitt and not the courts that brought gay marriage to Massachusetts is that it is revisionist history.
Yes, Mitt’s abortion position has been changed. His position on gay marriage however, has been consistent. When the decision came down, Romney said this,
”All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.”
More recently, he said this,
“I have been an ardent defender of traditional marriage, and have fought same-sex marriage in every way I could conceive,†Romney said. As governor, Romney pushed for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The facts demonstrate that Romney did indeed do everything he, legally, could do to stop gay marriage in Mass. Did he ultimately succeed in preventing gay marriage? No, he didn’t. The reason isn’t because he, Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt are secret shills for the “gay agendaâ€, it’s that he had limited options, based on the very state constitution you point to as Romney’s Holy Grail to strike down gay marriage.
The fact is that Romney is severely limited by the very state constitution that you hold up as the source of all his alleged powers to stop gay marriage. The state attorney general, as the state’s chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth. Not Romney. Romney tried to do several things in the courts, but he was blocked by the AG,
Associated Press,
April 15, 2004
Mass. Gov. Seeks to Stop Gay Marriage
Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly last month rejected the Republican governor’s request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006, when voters may have a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions.
The man Romney hopes to tap as special counsel is retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court’s November ruling legalizing gay marriage an “abomination.”
The attorney general, as the state’s chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth.
Would a pro gay agenda politician select a special counsel who believed that court’s ruling was an “abomination”? Would he? Doesn’t that indicate to you that Romney was serious about doing what he could through the legal process? It does to me. There is a big difference between what you want Romney to do and what he is able to do.
Romney tried to do many things, in some cases he succeeded. For example, Mitt was very strong in seeking to restrict out of state couples from coming to MA for gay marriage licenses. He went to court and he won,
PBS Newshour
March 30, 2006, 3:50pm EST
COURT RULES OUT-OF-STATE GAY COUPLES MAY NOT MARRY IN MASSACHUSETTS
Gay couples from states where same-sex marriage is banned may not marry in Massachusetts, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday.
In some cases the outcome was less than fully satisfying. Mitt won these battles, but lost the war,
Boston Globe
December 27, 2006
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that it had no authority to order the Legislature to vote on a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, but the justices gave Governor Mitt Romney a symbolic victory by scolding lawmakers for shirking “their lawful obligations.”Boston Globe
June 29, 2006
Lobbying intensifies on gay marriage
Romney, O’Malley press for vote on a ban
Governor Mitt Romney and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley called on the Legislature yesterday to hold a scheduled vote next month on a proposed ban of same-sex marriage, amid indications that gay-rights advocates are prepared to use procedural tactics to kill the measure.
They got their vote, not the outcome they wanted. Again, Mitt was not passive in this, and he certainly was not Imposing Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts
Here are more examples of Mitt taking positions you would seemingly support,
Romney backs new effort to prohibit gay marriages
Proposal for ballot excludes civil unions
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | June 17, 2005
Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ”muddied” compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions.Romney Files Suit Over Gay Marriage
Romney files lawsuit after legislators recessed before vote on issue
November 26, 2006 Outgoing Massachusetts Governor W. Mitt Romney announced last week that he would file a lawsuit with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in an attempt to put an amendment banning gay marriage to a statewide referendum.
Where’s the acknowledgement that Romney did these things? The idea that “Mitt Romney, Not the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, Imposed Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts†is unbelievable, literally.
Your claim that Romney has the constitutional authority to define marriage, is not a sound legal reading of the law,
By Frank Phillips and Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 3/30/2004
“The governor can act regardless of what the legislators do,” said Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a group that has called on Romney to seek a stay of the SJC’s decision until voters have decided the issue in 2006.
Crews said lawyers for his coalition believe that Romney has the constitutional authority to define marriage. He said the state constitution is one of the few that involves the governor in marriage issues. Chapter 3, Article V, allows the governor a role in determining “all causes of marriage.”
“We believe the governor has the law behind him,” said Crews.
But many constitutional scholars reject the notion and say Romney’s legal maneuvers will not sway the high court. They say the governor’s powers under the Massachusetts Constitution regarding marriage are trumped by its equal protection language.
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said those requirements “must, like all other parts of the state constitution, be enforced by the governor in accord with the authoritative construction given to them by the SJC.”
Tribe said the argument that the SJC delay implementation of its decision until the issue goes before voters in November 2006 is “speculative actual prediction” that voters will support an amendment that has only won initial approval from lawmakers. The amendment won’t make it on the ballot until a second vote by the Legislature in its next session, beginning in January.
“Piling prediction upon prediction to ask the SJC for an unprecedented 2 1/2-year extension of a half-year stay already granted by the SJC . . . seems far-fetched in the extreme,” Tribe said.
“Not only would such a further stay be unprecedented in its duration, but denying people the fundamental right to marry the partner of their choice purely on the gamble that this right may be rolled back by the electorate some 30 months hence would represent a step unprecedented in character.”
Here are some other attempts to block gay marriage that have been heard and rejected by the courts,
PBS Newshour
May 13, 2004
JUDGE BLOCKS LAST-MINUTE BID TO STOP MASS. GAY MARRIAGES
A federal judge Thursday rejected an 11th hour attempt by conservative groups to prevent Massachusetts from granting the first state-sanctioned gay marriage licenses beginning next week.“The Supreme Judicial Court (of Massachusetts) has the authority to interpret and reinterpret if necessary the term marriage as it appears in the Massachusetts constitution,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro wrote in his opinion.
PBS Newshour
Nov. 29, 2004
Supreme Court Lets Stand Massachusetts High Court Ruling on Gay Marriages
The U.S. Supreme Court opted to stay out of the Massachusetts gay marriage fight for now, deciding on Monday not to hear a challenge to the state court’s decision legalizing same-sex unions. The justices rejected efforts by those opposed to the state court’s ruling to consider their appeal, but offered no comment on the reason for their decision.
This is the second time the high court declined to intervene in the Massachusetts dispute. Last May, justices refused to block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.Associated Press
May 7, 2004
SJC denies lawmakers’ motion to vacate decision on gay marriageBOSTON – The state’s highest court Friday unanimously rejected an appeal by 13 state lawmakers to reverse its November decision legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts as of May 17. The lawmakers had argued that the Supreme Judicial Court lacked jurisdiction in the case under the state Constitution. Instead, they argued, the Legislature and governor are empowered to determine marriage laws. The court ruled Friday that the motion was untimely, because the case had already been decided; that the same arguments had been raised by others and rejected during the court process; and that the assertion that the court had no jurisdiction was erroneous.
Repeatedly, the courts have heard and rejected the arguments on gay marriage in Mass.
Some of your other proposed solutions included the “Bill of Addressâ€, of which you said,
When the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth, Romney could have exercised a “bill of address†to impeach the activist judges. But he didn’t.
First of all that is up to the legislature, not the governor. The legislature, apparently, had no interest,
Foes of gay marriage try long shot
Bill seeks to remove four of SJC’s justicesTwenty-eight days before the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage goes into effect, diehard opponents will turn today to a radical, long-shot strategy: a bill to remove the four justices who penned the historic ruling.
The lone sponsor of the measure — Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg — said he sees the “bill of address” as a tool to pressure members of the court to reconsider their landmark 4-3 decision or risk losing their judgeships.
“I’m going to be in tomorrow to file the bill,” said Goguen, 70, who strongly opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. “I’m going solo for now, but I will circulate it to all the legislators.”
Secondly, there is a reason that the “bill of address†is so inappropriate,
Richard C. Van Nostrand, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that the bill of address route has been invoked rarely for a reason. “We don’t want to go down a path that would cause judges to fear removal from their position for making unpopular decisions,” Nostrand said.
So on and on it goes. Your mind is obviously made up about Mitt Romney. What I have attempted to do is demonstrate that Romney is not the guy you claim him to be. The idea that “Mitt Romney, Not the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, Imposed Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts†is demonstrably and factually wrong.
He’s done what he could through the legal process; he has spoken out aggressively against gay marriage, consistently. That is not enough for you, but it is for me, and I don’t even agree with him on this issue.
I have no problem with gay marriage and wish that it would come to a vote because I strongly believe it would pass in Massachusetts and we could finally put this issue to rest.