MA SJC Upholds the Rule of Law - Oh No!
To the recent Massachusetts SJC ruling that upheld the use of a 1913 state law prohibiting persons from out-of-state from marrying in Massachusetts, if the marriage would not be legal in their home state, here are the reactions from a couple of our would-be governors.
From the Boston Herald:
So, basically, we shouldn't bother having any laws and let Tom Reilly run the Commonwealth as he sees fit. Gee, what's not to love with that plan? This seems to be the message Deval Patrick is sending out here, also echoed by one local blogger, Mass Marrier:
OK, I'm willing to award partial credit. He's only halfway off his rocker on that one.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone petitioning the General Court (state legislature) to consider repealing a law they feel is unjust. That's a fundamental principle of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But, to call for an elected official to start selectively enforcing the law, and then describing such action as honorable and courageous, is just oozing with double standards.
Yet, that's precisely what Deval Patrick and others seem to be calling for here. How many times do I have to repeat myself? If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed, or removed from the books. Period. End of discussion.
How would Mr. Patrick feel if we were to start selectively enforcing the state's anti-discrimination laws at the sole discretion of the Attorney General, or if we were to give Mitt Romney carte blanche to rewrite the abortion laws for the Commonwealth.
I'm guessing the left wouldn't be so gung-ho over that, seeing as it's not their guy in the corner office. We saw the same thing happen in 2004 when the legislature rammed through a bill removing the power to fill a vacant US Senate seat from the governor, per existing state law. Anyone who thinks that would have happened if a Democrat was sitting in the corner office is simply delusional.
Related case in point: the Bush bashers have been tying their panties in knots these days over the wiretapping of phone conversations of individuals suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations. Going on the questionable assumption that the actions of the NSA were, in fact, in violation of the law, why is it not "courageous" and "honorable" that the Bush administration is now choosing not to enforce that particular law? After all, as long as he believes he's doing the right thing, that's all that counts, right?
Seems if their guy does it, it's honorable, but if the evil Bush administration does it, it's treasonous activity that warrants impeachment, prosecution, and imprisonment.
And how many times have we heard those on the left saying how terrible it is to live in a country where one party controls all three branches of government? Yet, the same people here in Massachusetts will tell you that their top priority this year is to elect a Democrat as governor, in order "fix" the Commonwealth.
I'll assume they're using the word "fix" in the veterinarian sense here.
But, nooooooo. No double standards in play here. Run along now.
Getting back to the local front, we continue with the Boston Herald piece linked above. And, as usual, it gets "better".
And this coming from the office of the man who clamped down recently on "illegal" cranberry sauce sales on Thanksgiving morning with a fist of steel, but thinks it's just great to spend taxpayers' money on college tuition for illegal aliens.
The man who talks tough on cracking down on drunk driving in the Commonwealth (which, last I checked, is against the law), yet went out of his way to hinder the investigation of a drunk-driving crash involving the daughters of a campaign contributor.
Excuse me, Corey, but whose campaign are you working for again? Because, from where I'm sitting, you're doing one helluva job here writing the next Healey for Governor ad.
Also from the "Department of It Bears Repeating": The supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one, by the way, for those of you new here) want same sex couples from other states to be allowed to be married in Massachusetts, and for those marriages to be recognized in their home states.
Can we now assume that these same people, and their political allies on Beacon Hill, would have no problem with me carrying a concealed weapon in Boston, for lawful purposes, of course, on a concealed carry permit issued to me by the State of New Hampshire?
I'm sure if Governor Romney, in his quest to portray himself as a pro-gun rights presidential candidate, were to declare that to be allowed, they'd find his actions to be honorable and courageous. And, surely, Governor Patrick would be with me on this one.
Right?
(Mass Marrier link via Universal Hub)
UPDATE: Jay Tea at Wizbang throws his $0.02 in.
UPDATE (just because): Flashback - October 4, 2004
From the Boston Herald:
[Gubernatorial candidate Deval] Patrick said Romney and Reilly chose to enforce the 1913 law to appease gay-marriage opponents, and called it "a glaring example of their bad leadership."
"Every prosecutor has discretion about what laws to enforce and what laws not to," Patrick told the Herald yesterday.
So, basically, we shouldn't bother having any laws and let Tom Reilly run the Commonwealth as he sees fit. Gee, what's not to love with that plan? This seems to be the message Deval Patrick is sending out here, also echoed by one local blogger, Mass Marrier:
So, it looks like a governor and attorney general with courage and a sense of honor could order it not enforced and ask the General Court to get this abomination off the books.
OK, I'm willing to award partial credit. He's only halfway off his rocker on that one.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone petitioning the General Court (state legislature) to consider repealing a law they feel is unjust. That's a fundamental principle of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But, to call for an elected official to start selectively enforcing the law, and then describing such action as honorable and courageous, is just oozing with double standards.
Yet, that's precisely what Deval Patrick and others seem to be calling for here. How many times do I have to repeat myself? If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed, or removed from the books. Period. End of discussion.
How would Mr. Patrick feel if we were to start selectively enforcing the state's anti-discrimination laws at the sole discretion of the Attorney General, or if we were to give Mitt Romney carte blanche to rewrite the abortion laws for the Commonwealth.
I'm guessing the left wouldn't be so gung-ho over that, seeing as it's not their guy in the corner office. We saw the same thing happen in 2004 when the legislature rammed through a bill removing the power to fill a vacant US Senate seat from the governor, per existing state law. Anyone who thinks that would have happened if a Democrat was sitting in the corner office is simply delusional.
Related case in point: the Bush bashers have been tying their panties in knots these days over the wiretapping of phone conversations of individuals suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations. Going on the questionable assumption that the actions of the NSA were, in fact, in violation of the law, why is it not "courageous" and "honorable" that the Bush administration is now choosing not to enforce that particular law? After all, as long as he believes he's doing the right thing, that's all that counts, right?
Seems if their guy does it, it's honorable, but if the evil Bush administration does it, it's treasonous activity that warrants impeachment, prosecution, and imprisonment.
And how many times have we heard those on the left saying how terrible it is to live in a country where one party controls all three branches of government? Yet, the same people here in Massachusetts will tell you that their top priority this year is to elect a Democrat as governor, in order "fix" the Commonwealth.
I'll assume they're using the word "fix" in the veterinarian sense here.
But, nooooooo. No double standards in play here. Run along now.
Getting back to the local front, we continue with the Boston Herald piece linked above. And, as usual, it gets "better".
Reilly campaign spokesman Corey Welford dismissed Patrick'’s claims, saying the job of constitutional officers is to "follow and respect the law" not just the ones they like or agree with.
And this coming from the office of the man who clamped down recently on "illegal" cranberry sauce sales on Thanksgiving morning with a fist of steel, but thinks it's just great to spend taxpayers' money on college tuition for illegal aliens.
The man who talks tough on cracking down on drunk driving in the Commonwealth (which, last I checked, is against the law), yet went out of his way to hinder the investigation of a drunk-driving crash involving the daughters of a campaign contributor.
"To suggest it's alright to pick and choose which laws to enforce is either irresponsible, or shows a complete lack of experience in dealing with issues like these," Welford said.
Excuse me, Corey, but whose campaign are you working for again? Because, from where I'm sitting, you're doing one helluva job here writing the next Healey for Governor ad.
Also from the "Department of It Bears Repeating": The supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one, by the way, for those of you new here) want same sex couples from other states to be allowed to be married in Massachusetts, and for those marriages to be recognized in their home states.
Can we now assume that these same people, and their political allies on Beacon Hill, would have no problem with me carrying a concealed weapon in Boston, for lawful purposes, of course, on a concealed carry permit issued to me by the State of New Hampshire?
I'm sure if Governor Romney, in his quest to portray himself as a pro-gun rights presidential candidate, were to declare that to be allowed, they'd find his actions to be honorable and courageous. And, surely, Governor Patrick would be with me on this one.
Right?
(Mass Marrier link via Universal Hub)
UPDATE: Jay Tea at Wizbang throws his $0.02 in.
The law, right or wrong, exists. And it should be followed until it is changed. We have numerous means to change the law available to us, and we should use them, or simply live with the laws as they are. This principle stands regardless of the particulars -- whether the laws cover marriage, immigration, or lying under oath about oral sex.
Otherwise, we are not a nation of law, but one of the anarchy of convenience and license. And history has seen far too many of those -- they're the societies that are always referred to in the past tense.
UPDATE (just because): Flashback - October 4, 2004
Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.
~ Glenn Reynolds
