BETRAYAL FROM WITHIN - Insiders Have Discussed It for Years. The Secret Is Out:
Pro-life, pro-family conservatism has been hijacked by people addicted to money and power.

It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up.

by Gregg Jackson and John Haskins

Part 2:  The Impeachment of Willard Mitt Romney:
Adams, Jefferson & Paine ask what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't

(Read Part 1) 

There's a spreading awareness that the conservative "elites" have shirked their duty to ask some huge questions of Willard Mitt Romney. Since Jay Sekulow, Tony Perkins, the National Review, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh are impeded by sycophancy and conflicts of interest, attorneys John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Robert Paine will ask the troubling questions.

We are at the impeachment trial of Mitt Romney that would have occurred in Boston by early 2005 if someone had told Americans they are allowed to read their own state and federal constitutions instead of outsourcing basic citizenship to lawyers and pundits who themselves only pretend to read them. In the jury is every American serviceman who died for our unalienable right to govern ourselves according to the plain words in our constitutions. Robert Paine, Esquire will be the lead prosecutor.

Behind him are Washington, Franklin, Paul Revere, George Mason and Patrick Henry, who risked their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" for the constitutions now being surrendered to "pragmatism" by Republican influence peddlers.

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN of the conservative establishment, Justice Robert Paine begins the interrogation of Governor Romney with the questions you've failed to ask for the last year."

  
Founding Father and lawyer Robert Paine, who prosecuted British redcoats after the 1770 Boston Massacre, signed the Declaration of Independence as a delegate to the Continental Congress, served Massachusetts as a Supreme Judicial Court Justice, Attorney General and Speaker of the House, proves that Mitt Romney knowingly violated his oath of office in becoming the Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."

Justice Robert Paine begins the interrogation of Willard Mitt Romney:

Governor Romney, you've said "everybody in America knows" that the Goodridge court opinion "legalized" homosexual "marriage" and that you did everything you could to oppose it. But didn't you pick the wrong constitution for that alibi, Mr. Romney? Is it not true, governor, unfortunately for you and your anti-constitutional "conservative" lawyers, that even a child can understand that the Massachusetts Constitution obliterates your claim that you merely followed the law?

Doesn't that constitution deny judges authority to even hear cases of marriage law and thereby nullify their illegal trespasses into the legislative realm? Hadn't the same court admitted  in 1999 that it lacks any authority to change marriage law?

Have not many other supreme courts such as California's, Rhode Island's and Washington state's agreed that judges have no legal power to redefine marriage as established by a legislature? 

Have not the Massachusetts judges themselves admitted repeatedly what your state constitution makes even more obvious than any other constitution:

     1. that judges lack any power over legislatures or governor, and
     2. that marriage law can be changed only by legislatures?

Is it not clear to any citizen upon reading the state Constitution that the Goodridge opinion was merely a legally meaningless attempt to bluff the Legislature, which has exclusive law-making authority, to legalize sodomy-based "marriage?"

As you know, the Legislature never complied with the judges' wishes. And the same court had previously made it very clear that under any such circumstances as you found yourself in, the governor must continue to execute the statutes as ratified and intended by the Legislature.

  
President John Adams - who co-wrote the Massachusetts Constitution as the most explicit document in the English language denying the judicial branch any power to make or strike down or redefine laws and removing any possible claim that judges have power to instruct or order the legislature or the governor - interrogates Mitt Romney with the questions that today's pseudo-constitutionalist "conservative legal experts" such as Jay Sekulow, James Bopp, Hugh Hewitt, Anne Coulter and Mark Levin... well, sort of forgot to ask him.

Justice Robert Paine yields the floor to President John Adams.

Governor, Romney, You've called me your favorite president. Please never repeat that in public. Your attitude toward the rule of law and the supremacy of judges is at the opposite extreme from mine and from any that I recognize in the Constitution that I co-wrote and for which I risked my life and for which many men have given their lives. As a dead American president, I have grave concerns about your ambitions.

You assert that you would appoint only judges who apply the law as legislated and claim no anti-constitutional power to create new ones by which they can negate the sovereignty of the people. This would be in stark contrast to all of your appointments in Massachusetts, where you expended no efforts to appoint judges or other high officials meeting that description.

Nor, did you fulfill your obligations to restrain judges within their constitutional bounds. In justifying your illegal orders imposing homosexual "marriages," Mr. Romney, you claimed that judges had changed the law. But did you not swear to uphold Part the First, Article X of the state Constitution: "The people of the commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent."?

Among the self-styled "constitutional" lawyers you recruited to serve your ambitions and who draw public attention away from the state constitution is a judicial supramacist named David French from a peculiarly servile law firm called Alliance Defense Fund. French and others assert that the court redefined the term "marriage" in the statutes written by the legislature. We are all tempted to laugh at this crude notion, but for the gross malpractice and subversion of law that it entails.

French boasts mightily, as you do, Governor Romney, of a law degree from the alma matter of Robert Paine and myself. Did they tell you at Harvard that constitutions trump statutes and that statutes trump judges and that therefore constitutions, Mr. Romney, must trump judges' opinions? Are you unaware that the Massachusetts Constitution says this explicitly in multiple ways?

And are you aware that his amusing claim that judges can redefine "marriage," in statutes written by the legislature is refuted by judges themselves in thousands of rulings? In Massachusetts, for example, in 1985, "We recognize….it is beyond our province to rewrite the statute." 

And, in 1984, (There) is "no right to conjecture what the Legislature would have enacted if they had foreseen...a case like this; much less...read into the statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to put there, whether the omission came from inadvertence or of set purpose." In 1977, "It is not for us to assume a legislative role and rewrite the statute." In 1980, "We cannot substitute our views and judgment for those of the Legislature."

I think the word "cannot" is a clear enough word for a Harvard lawyer to grasp, don't you Governor Romney? Or perhaps the judges have redefined the legal definition of "cannot."

In 1994, "The plaintiff's request for a liberal interpretation of the statute is essentially a request that this court rewrite or ignore the plain language of the statute. We decline to intrude on the Legislature's function or to disregard the plain meaning of the statute."

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Want to know which leaders lawyers and pundits talk the "conservative" talk but walk the liberal walk? Join the Underground!

___________________________________________________________________________

In 1945, "[I]t is our plain but not necessarily easy duty to read the words of the statute in the sense in which they were intended, to accept and enforce the public policy of the Commonwealth as disclosed by its policymaking body, whatever our own personal opinions may be, and to avoid judicial legislation in the guise of new constructions to meet real or supposed new popular viewpoints, preserving always to the Legislature alone its proper prerogative of adjusting the statutes to changed conditions... If it is thought that modern conditions require that such an exception be made, the Legislature and not this court should make it."

Need I go on, Governor? Ah, but of course, Mr. Romney, you already knew all of this, because you raised your right hand and solemnly swore to use your full powers to uphold Article XXX, which reads: "The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

What happened? Have the judges acquired an army? Were you under threat of torture or death when you lied to America and pretended that judges somehow overrode the constitution and their own previous rulings, rewrote the marriage laws and ordered you to pretend they had power over the Legislature and the Governor?"

Mr. Romney, your conservative super-lawyers ignore the fact that the Goodridge judges announced that they were redefining the term "marriage" in common law -- that is merely in their own future opinions -- not in the Legislature's statutes, which, of course, would be absurd. Surely, as a Harvard Law graduate, you found that quite funny, Governor. After all, unlike some states, Massachusetts has no common law marriage!

Why, Governor Romney, did you and Jay Sekulow, David French and Professor Mary Ann Glendon not expose the judges' ploy by telling America that, in a jurisdiction with no common law marriage, redefining the definition" of "marriage" "in common law is meaningless? For what purpose, Governor Romney, have you and your lawyers pretended not to know that redefining common law marriage has absolutely no effect at all on statutory marriage?

Since as you know, Governor, terms in constitutions and statutes retain in perpetuity their meaning when ratified, what authority did the judges have to declare unconstitutional a definition of marriage that I and my compatriots made implicitly constitutional when we wrote the term "marriage" into the state Constitution? Can a legal and social concept found in a constitution become unconstitutional, Mr. Romney? A lawyer should know that the courts have always ruled otherwise.

If judges could make terms and concepts in constitutions unconstitutional, couldn't whole constitutions gradually become unconstitutional term by term, concept by concept? Both you and the judges swore to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. How then could you and the judges violate it and proclaim that its terms and concepts have been redefined?

What does "supreme law" mean? Or perhaps they judges have redefined the meaning of that legal concept too? Is there anything they couldn't redefine? And would it ever be your job to ignore them or fight to remove them? What else could it possibly mean for a governor to defend a state constitution? If not against arrogant, outlaw judges, then against whom? Gobblins and ghosts? What does "I solemnly swear" mean in the Twenty-first Century?  Has that concept been also redefined or discovered to be unconstitutional?

As my predecessor, Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchinson declared in 1767, "the judge should never be the legislator: Because, then the will of the judges would be the law and this tends to a state of slavery." Is this not, Governor Romney, the basis of the American form of representative government which you swore to defend against rogue judges? 

Why then do you and your stable of celebrity "conservative" lawyers mysteriously insist you "had no choice" but to violate the constitutional separation of powers and "obey" the court? Who forced you to violate your oath of office?     

Read Part 3 of It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up.
The Impeachment of Mitt Romney: Adams, Jefferson and Madison ask what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't

Read Part 1:  What are Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Coulter hiding about Romney?

"We believe political lies not because they are believable, but because we want to." - Malcolm Muggeridge

If you're not yet helping the Underground...maybe you've already surrendered... and you just don't know it. UndergroundJournal.net

___________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL OFFER: mention the Underground Journal and get your copy personally autographed by Gregg!

Get Gregg Jackson's authoritative guide for conservatives! Tired of intolerant, know-it-all liberals and pompous leftists? Wouldn't it be great to have the facts to combat all those liberal myths and lies? Well, Gregg Jackson puts the overwhelming power of proven facts in your hands! $29.95 at GreggJackson.com Remember to mention the Underground Journal

______________________________________________________________________________________