|
It
is of grave importance to the future respect of
the constitution of the great state of
Massachusetts, and the people thereof, that
in these last few weeks left in your term as
governor, you take firm action on the issue
of same-sex "marriage." As governor,
you have the authority to reverse what has
been done. We
are not seeking by way of this letter to argue the
issue of same sex "marriage" in
Massachusetts, but rather the way in
which it was executed into practice. The
facts pointed out in this letter call for an
immediate end to the distribution of same-sex
"marriage" licenses in Massachusetts and
the nullification of those licenses
previously issued in direct violation
of Massachusetts's law, rendering them
illegal. The
Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial
Branch any role in marriage policy: "All causes of marriage shall
be heard and determined by the governor and
council, until the legislature shall, by law, make
other provision." (Part the second, Ch. III,
Article V.) In
hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an
opinion, four of the seven judges violated the
Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts
have admitted on other occasions that neither
they, nor legislators, nor the governor are
authorized to violate the Constitution: "(The
words of the Constitution) are mandatory
and not simply directory. They
are highly important. There must be
compliance with them."
(Town of Mount Washington v. Cook
288 Mass. 67) Nevertheless,
after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you
told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of
America that you had no choice but to "execute the
law." However, there was no law,
but rather the judges' collective opinion.
(Judges do not make laws.) It
is imperative for you as the governor of
Massachusetts to uphold the state
constitution, which requires treating an
unconstitutional judiciary ruling as void (as
President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v.
Madison). An unconstitutional
ruling is grounds to be seen as an
illegal ruling; in this case it was a
ruling that affected only the specific
plaintiffs (Abraham Lincoln refused to accept the
Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges
do not make law).
By
asserting that the court's opinion was a
"law" and thus binding, instead
of using the
constitutional legislature avenue for making
laws, you issued the first same-sex marriage
licenses in American history and
inadvertently did so illegally. The
Massachusetts
Constitution
does not confirm your statements or your
actions:
"The people of this
commonwealth are not controllable by any other
laws than those to which their constitutional
representative body have given their
consent."
(PART THE FIRST, Article X.) The
Constitution also disproves your assertion to the
nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter
207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the
four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the
execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised
but by the legislature, or by authority derived
from it, to be exercised in such particular cases
only as the legislature shall expressly
provide for." (PART THE FIRST,
Article XX.) Under
the Massachusetts Constitution judges cannot
suspend or alter statutes.
This principle is clearly fundamental to
Massachusetts' system of government and is
restated in multiple ways.
"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." (PART THE FIRST, Article
XXX.) We
note that the Massachusetts Constitution so
completely protects citizens from the rule of
judges that even laws passed in the Colonial
period before the Constitution itself was
ratified cannot be suspended by
judges:
"All the laws
which have heretofore been adopted, used and
approved . shall still remain and be in full
force, until altered or repealed by the
legislature."
(PART THE SECOND, Article VI.) Even
this same court is forced to admit: "The Constitution as framed is
the only guide. To change its terms is within the
power of the people alone."
(Opinion of the Justices, 220
Mass.
613, 618) We
note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words
in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges
and Juries must go according to their Reason, that
is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be
the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the
Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State
of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795,
courts "ought never to be allowed to depart
from the well known boundaries of express law,
into the wide fields of discretion." Regarding your statements
of the authority of Goodridge and
180-day instruction to the Legislature (which is
illegal to begin with), the same court had
admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order
to the legislature or the governor:
"The courts [instructing] when
and how to perform...constitutional duties"
(mandamus) "is not available against the
Legislature [or] against the Governor)."
"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts
Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain
from intruding into the power and function of
another branch of government." (LIMITS v.
President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35
(1992) We
also note this ruling in 1969: "an
unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is
an act that is "not only not warranted but,
indeed, [is] precluded." (Commonwealth v.
Leis) We
note that even the Goodridge majority said
they were not suspending the
marriage statute: "Here,
no one argues that striking down the marriage laws
is an appropriate form of relief." In
fact, they admitted that under the statute,
Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws,
same-sex marriage is illegal: "We conclude, as did
the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be
construed to permit same-sex couples to
marry." Moreover,
we note there is nothing in the
Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to
authorize the governor to violate
the statute in the event that the Legislature
would not repeal it. We
also note that the statute remains in the
Massachusetts General Laws and has never been
stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself
has previously clarified your
obligation: We
note that despite the court's admission that the
statute prohibits same-sex marriage, and the
Constitution's statement that only the Legislature
can suspend laws, you ordered officials to
perform same-sex marriages and thus violate the
statute (a crime under c. 207 §48) and the oath of
office. (Those who refused to go against their
faith beliefs and or the laws of the state, you
ordered to resign.) This
emboldened other local officials, including the
mayor of Boston, to boast publicly
that they would break
the law by "marrying" out-of-state same-sex
couples - also a crime under c. 207 §48.
In
summary, while the four judges asserted that
Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not
suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to
do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed
it. Therefore: 1.
The
marriage statute is still in
effect. 2.
The
statute continues to prohibit same-sex
marriages. We note that you swore
no oath to execute court opinions, but
rather laws and the
Constitution. The same
Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The
Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words
of the statute ... as written, and an event or
contingency for which no provision has been made
does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch]
legislation."
(Amherst v. Attorney General,
398 Mass. 793) You
swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against
assault from the other two
branches. Your oath
itself declares that it is violated on
penalty of perjury, a felony.
¨
We
urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill
the obligation imposed by the Constitution of
Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive
Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 207, the marriage statute. We call
upon you to declare immediately in a
formal written executive order that the
Goodridge court does not have the
authority to overrule the state constitution
and that same-sex marriage therefore remains
against the law in the state of
Massachusetts. ¨
We
urge you also to issue immediately a public
memorandum from the Office of the Governor
declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged
in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which
the oath of office attaches the penalties of
perjury -- a felony. ¨
We
urge you to immediately notify the legislators,
who openly conspired against the Constitution in
denying the first marriage amendment petition a
vote in 2002 that: n It
was a violation of the
oath of office, which is a constitutional
felony. n
It
is a citizens'
constitutional petition, an initiative
that remains pending until brought to one of
the five final actions, which the
Constitution requires. n Their
crime against the Constitution is perpetual and
without statute of limitations. n Unless
they vote, you must call them into session on
that original marriage petition
and will
order the state police to arrest them and
bring them to the chambers to vote (as the
Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas
legislators refused to convene a
quorum). The
signatories of this letter, sign here unto in the
urgency of this matter, for you to declare
immediately that same-sex "marriage" licenses
issued in the state of Massachusetts are in fact
in violation of state law and are therefore not
legal. ___________________________________________________________ |
