Everything Old is New Again -- The Return of Catholic Advocacy for Judicial Activism to End the Death Penalty

Okay. This time will DEFINITELY be my last post here. But just had to acknowledge one last thing on my almost blogiversary.

Two days from today, Saturday, 7 March, will be the 10th anniversary of this blog. The very first substantive post on this blog was about capital punishment. To be precise, it was about the then recent Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons, which held that it was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to execute those who have been convicted of committing murder prior to their 18th birthday. The effect of the Roper decision was to abolish the juvenile death penalty in at least 19 states.

In that post, I acknowledged my opposition to the juvenile death penalty (which has now become an opposition to all forms of capital punishment). However, I also noted the troubling aspect of many anti-death-penalty Catholics hailing the Roper decision as a positive thing. While I agreed with the desired outcome of abolishing capital punishment for those who had committed murder before reaching the age of majority, I warned against the impulse of looking to the judicial branch to implement our agendas:

Catholics who are opposed to capital punishment in general, or who, like me, are opposed to the juvenile death penalty in particular, may be tempted to hail the Court’s Roper decision as a favorable development. Indeed, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on March 2 stated that it was “very encouraged that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that executing juvenile offenders is indeed cruel and unusual.” However, notwithstanding the desirable result, I would like to warn Catholics against viewing the Court’s decision in too positive a light, as the Court’s majority, in reaching its holding, relied on reasoning that could lead to outcomes that are problematic for Catholics.

First, it must be noted that what the Court did in Roper was, in my view, an abusive exercise of judicial fiat by unelected and life-tenured judges, who usurped what should be the function of the duly elected and politically accountable legislative branch of government. The majority on the Court ignored the views of the electorate on this issue and read its own policy preferences into the Constitution in order to create a constitutional right that was never there before. In doing so, the Court’s ruling flies in the face of over 200 years of 8th Amendment jurisprudence, and is at odds with the Court’s own previous ruling 15 years earlier in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that the death penalty for minors was NOT unconstitutional. Amazingly, the Court essentially concluded, as pointed out by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion, “that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years – not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.”

This type of activist judicial lawmaking is essentially the same thing the Court did in creating (out of whole cloth) a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as well as in recently striking down laws banning the practice of partial birth abortion. Those Catholics who think the Court acted properly in abolishing the juvenile death penalty in the Roper decision, should not be surprised when the Court uses that same judicial fiat to rule in a manner opposed by Catholics, such as it did in Roe and subsequent abortion-related cases.

I also noted the troubling trend of the Court's increasing reliance upon foreign precedence and the potential ill effects that might have in the arena of creating additional "rights" -- some of which would undermine Catholic views of the family -- out of whole cloth.

Next, I noted the troubling acceptance of the Court's ruling by people who ought to know better:

Again, I realize that many Catholics, despite the concerns I have raised, will nevertheless be tempted to rejoice at the result of the Roper ruling, as evidenced by the positive statement coming from the Bishops’ Conference. I have corresponded with other Catholics who, although troubled by the Court’s reasoning, believe that the “legal technicalities” of the Roper decision should be ignored because the result was just. I would caution Catholics, however, to keep in mind that such good ends cannot justify improper means. And, in my view, running roughshod over the rule of law, as the Roper Court has done, in order to reach a particular desired result simply cannot be justified.

Finally, I concluded with a quote from A Man for All Seasons, and applied it as a warning for what was likely to come from an acceptance of raw judicial activism:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! 

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. 

Sir Thomas More’s admonition to Roper should serve as a warning and a reminder to Catholics that the activist Court that sides with us in this particular instance is the same activist Court that is likely in the future (as it has in the past) to “turn round on us” and use its increasingly strident activism to decide cases contrary to our Catholic values.

Now, fast forward 10 years, and along comes this joint editorial from "the national Catholic journals":

National Catholic Journals Unite: ‘Capital Punishment Must End’ 

Joint Editorial of America, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, and Our Sunday Visitor

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Glossip v. Gross, a case out of Oklahoma that challenges the most widely used lethal injection protocol as being cruel and unusual punishment.

The court took up the case in January after a year of three high-profile, problematic executions in three states. The court will likely issue a ruling by June. Our hope is that it will hasten the end of the death penalty in the United States.

[...]

We, the editors of four Catholic journals — America, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter and Our Sunday Visitor — urge the readers of our diverse publications and the whole U.S. Catholic community and all people of faith to stand with us and say, “Capital punishment must end.”

[...]

The Supreme Court has agreed with Archbishop Coakley and will consider the issue. We join our bishops in hoping the Court will reach the conclusion that it is time for our nation to embody its commitment to the right-to-life by abolishing the death penalty once and for all.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/national-catholic-journals-unite-capital-punishment-must-end/#ixzz3TWgEeACO

So, here we go again. I can understand America's and National Catholic Reporter's affinity for judicial activism, since those publications have never been averse to the Court's using its raw power to push agenda items to which those editorials staffs are friendly. But National Catholic Register and Our Sunday Visitor should know better. They have seen the pro-life and pro-family causes burned time and time again by unelected, life-tenured, activist judges.

The editors at National Catholic Register did feel the need to at least provide an explanation, although they avoided discussing the problematic stance of urging the Court to engage in raw judicial tyranny. My response in the comments to the Register's statement was as follows:

I oppose capital punishment. I want it to be abolished.
***
BUT the remedy for which the national Catholic journals are advocating is a recipe for judicial tyranny. You are asking for unelected life-tenured judges to usurp a power unto themselves that they do not have—to find something in the Constitution that simply is not there (although they are certainly not shy about doing so when it comes to declaring a constitutional right to abortion on demand and same-sex “marriage”).
***
In fact, you are asking the Supreme Court to find “unconstitutional” something that is explicitly provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution itself, by its terms, validates the “constitutionality” of capital punishment by making it the penalty for treason. How can something be “unconstitutional” when it is called for by the Constitution? What this editorial proposes is for the Supreme Court to ignore the clear language of the Constitution and substitute the judges’ own personal policy preferences.
***
Yes, capital punishment should be abolished, but not by judges who, by doing so, would be making up the law, not following it. Instead, we should be advocating the abolition of the death penalty to those in the elected branches in the state and federal governments who are empowered to act in this regard. It is in the lawmaking branches across the nation—in the legislatures and executive branches—that we should be looking to for action. Movement in the right direction is already happening in several states throughout the nation, as this editorial acknowledges.

Well, that's all I have to say on the matter. Just thought it interesting to see this "joint editorial" encouraging the Supreme Court to abolish capital punishment almost 10 years to the day after I published my first blog post on exactly the same topic.

Thanks for a great 10 years. Goodbye.

UPDATE (6 March 2015)
Pat Archbold, writing at National Catholic Register, takes issue with the publication's advocacy of judicial tyranny, citing the same concerns I have cited here and that I cited 10 years ago in response to the Roper decision. (Hat tip: Paul Z at The American Catholic)

225 Years Ago Today - First Presidential Inauguration of His Excellency, George Washington

225 years ago today - 30 April 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as our Nation's first President on the steps of Federal Hall in New York City. In his First Inaugural Address, President Washington TWICE invoked God and asked for His divine guidance and blessings upon the new Nation:

"... Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence...

"... Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Happy 281st Birthday to the Father of Our Country, His Excellency George Washington

His Excellency, George Washington

Remember Remember the Fifth of November

In Honor of the Father of Our Country - His Excellency, George Washington

Bill Would Honor Washington and Lincoln Separately

The Conversion of George Washington

Protecting Religious Liberty in a Same-Sex "Marriage" Country

Given recent comments by Justice Anthony Kennedy, I'm not so sure that nationwide same-sex "marriage" is as inevitable in the short run as many of its proponents seem to hope. But I do believe it is unavoidable in the long run, and that - as I have written many times in the past (see links below) - the Church will suffer a loss of religious freedom at the very least, and even suffer outright persecution in some form, as a result.


A trio of legal minds (including Prof. Doug Laycock of my alma mater, UVA, who was lead counsel on the Hosanna-Tabor case) argue, wrongly in my view, that SSM is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but also argue, rightly in my view, that the Supreme Court needs to concern itself with the implications of such a ruling for religious liberty:

I understand that the Catholic bishops are a bit preoccupied at the moment, but they and other religious leaders who are worried about the implications of same-sex marriage for religious liberty should make time to read the amicus brief filed last Thursday by the American Jewish Committee in the Supreme Court’s Proposition 8/DOMA case. It shows them the way forward in a country where, sooner rather than later, SSM will be the law of the land.

Let it be noted that the brief is a Protestant-Catholic-Jewish affair, written by three of the most respected advocates of religious liberty in the American legal community: (Protestant) Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School, who served as lead counsel in last year’s Hosanna-Tabor ministerial exception case; (Catholic) Thomas C. Berg of the University of St. Thomas Law School, a prolific author who has done legal work for the archdiocese of Chicago; and (Jewish) Marc Stern, associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee, who played a key role in drafting the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[More]

Agree or disagree with the outcome for which they argue, the arguments they make on behalf of protecting religious liberty in their amicus brief should be of interest to Catholics who desire to remain faithful to the timeless teachings of our faith in a nation increasingly moving to secularism and hostility toward religion.

Here is a direct link to the amicus brief.


UPDATE:
Here is a post on this topic at Mirror of Justice from a couple of weeks ago.

Looks like I'm late to the game in discussing this (which I suppose is always a risk when one cuts back on the amount of blogging one does).

Hat tip: Rick Garnett.



Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject: 
Outside the Asylum: "How the Next Civil War Will Begin"

Archbishop Chaput: "Systematic Discrimination Against Church Now Seems Inevitable"

Pope Critical of Labour’s "Unjust" Equality Laws Ahead of UK Visit

Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Bork Predicts “Terrible Conflict” Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom

Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Persecution of Civil Society

InsideCatholic on "The Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage"

Secularist Attacks on the Catholic Church in Britain

Regular Guy Paul on What's Next for Same-Sex "Marriage"

Catholic Provocation?

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

San Francisco's Hateful Anti-Catholic Resolution Prompts Lawsuit by Thomas More Center

Catholic League Says Gay Adoption Issue Spurring Anti-Catholic Bigotry

9th Circuit Rules Okay to Censor Terms "Marriage" and "Family Values" as Hate Speech

UK Catholic Schools Endangered by Sexual Orientation Regulations

Official Anti-Catholic Bigotry Returns to British Parliament

"A Charter for Suing Christians"

A Catholic Londoner on "The Last Acceptable Prejudice"

British Bishops: U.K. Sex Equality Law "Threatens Catholic Adoption Agencies"

UK: Churches "Could be Forced to Bless Gay Weddings"

The Coming Persecution of Churches Over "Gay Marriage"

The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Angry Old White Man

John McCain railing against Rand Paul's appeal to "impressionable" kids in dorm rooms is so politically tone deaf and out of touch that it makes Clint Eastwood look like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Yesterday, in a textbook example of EVERYTHING that is wrong about John McCain, just after scolding Paul on the Senate floor, McCain lamented the retirement announcement of 78-year-old Democrat Sen. Carl. Levin who has been in the Senate FOR 35 YEARS ... since the Carter Administration.

McCain's world: young upstarts inspiring people to take our liberties seriously and challenging the perpetual war establishment ... bad; crusty old farts clinging to power and enriching themselves on the public teet until they're octogenarians ... good.

Remember ... John McCain got absolutely SLAUGHTERED in a presidential campaign in large part because his opponent was able to inspire young people to turn out in droves for him. Apparently, "Maverick" hasn't taken the lesson to heart. He and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham represent the hyper-militarist, neo-con old guard of the GOP. Hopefully, they are a dying breed.

NOW He Tells Us

Where was THIS Anthony Kennedy 21 years ago when the Casey decision came down?

Justice Anthony Kennedy concerned that so many charged issues are shifting to US Supreme Court

Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration. The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major policies in a democracy should not depend “on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.” [ED.: Channeling our colleague Justice Scalia, are we?]

Rather, he said, it is important for political leaders to show the world that democracy works through compromise. [ED.: Which is EXACTLY what overturning Roe v. Wade 21 years ago would have allowed.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Like Ed Morrissey, I'm wondering if it's time for pro-lifers to throw caution to the wind and start doing all across the country what Arkansas has recently done by placing strict time limits on abortion. Heck, go all the way and start enacting some outright bans. It's time for the federal courts to catch up with science anyway.

Let's press the Supreme Court to once again determine whether Roe v. Wade will continue to be the law of the land thereby foreclosing any opportunity for compromise solutions to limiting or even ending abortion. If the above is any indication, perhaps Anthony Kennedy has begun to rethink his "switch in time that saved none ... and killed many" in the Casey decision. I know if I were in his position as a Catholic jurist, I certainly wouldn't want the blood of so many innocents on my hands as I faced the twilight years of my judicial career, not to mention the twilight of my life as I contemplated meeting my Maker.

Congressman Destroys Sebelius on HHS Mandate and "Appropriate Balance" for Religious Liberty

Gowdy has provided not only a roadmap for whoever argues the case before the Supreme Court, but elicited about the best piece of evidence one could possibly ask for showing that the HHS didn't do its due diligence in considering the appropriate balancing of religious liberty interests.

The HHS mandate is pretty much doomed once it gets to the Supreme Court. When it comes to "striking the appropriate balance" between the fundamental right to religious liberty and some purported government regulatory interest, as Justice Roberts wrote recently in the Hosanna-Tabor case, "the First Amendment has struck the balance for us ."

By the way, I just found out that Congressman Gowdy is a Baylor graduate. Couple that with RG3 being the #2 pick in the NFL draft, and it's YET ANOTHER big day for Baylor.

Sic 'Em Bears !!!


UPDATE
You know what the best part about this entire exchange is? That the words "contraception" and "women's health" NEVER ONCE came up. And that's because this issue isn't about those things - it's about whether the government is permitted to burden religious liberty by demanding activity that violates the fundamental tenets of that religion.

What Congressman Gowdy has done here is to focus on the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL issues at stake, and whether Sebelius and the HHS gave due consideration (or any consideration at all) to what the LAW requires in order to burden a fundamental right like religious liberty. And Sebelius basically conceded that she and the HHS did not. Great work, Congressman!

Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President

Obamney/Robama in their own words:

 

There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.

Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.

 Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.

Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.


Vote for Constitution Party nominee

Virgil Goode!!!

Fight the Goode Fight!!!

More on Virgil Goode for President

I caught up with Virgil Goode over the weekend, after having not seen him in about a decade, at the Constitution Party Presidential Debate in Lansing, Michigan. Here are some photos of that event (along with a photo of some Goode for President campaign buttons I've collected over the last few weeks):










Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent

Established Politicians Going Third Party in 2012 Race

Virgil Goode for President [UPDATED]

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Is Virgil Goode Running for President?

An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent (Conservative)

Dear Members of the Constitution Party,

In two days, I will attend the Constitution Party Presidential Debate in Lansing, Michigan. I am excited for the opportunity to see the candidates in action, going head-to-head in debating the important issues of the day. I also hope to have the opportunity to talk one-on-one with the candidates about the opportunities this year's Presidential election offers to the Constitution Party.

And make no mistake: you have been offered a HUGE opportunity this year by the GOP's decision to, in all likelihood, nominate Mitt Romney as its Presidential nominee. People like me - independent pro-life conservatives who believe in the Constitution, but who have traditionally held our noses and voted for the GOP - have had enough, especially with the GOP's nomination of easily the least conservative (i.e. most liberal) candidate since Gerald Ford, and are looking to cast our votes for someone we can believe in, even if that means casting a 3rd party vote for President for the first time ever.

Because of the stakes involved in this election, this has not been an easy decision for me (although I made up my mind many years ago that I would NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney) and, I suspect, for many other like-minded conservatives who have decided they cannot vote for the Republican nominee in 2012. The decision has been made all the more difficult by the fact that we face the prospect of the re-election of the greatest threat to our constitutional republic who has ever occupied the Oval Office. In a year in which the GOP, including many conservatives for whom I have a great deal of respect, have adopted the "Anybody But Obama" mantra, my decision to cast my vote elsewhere is one that comes under constant scrutiny and is one that I find myself constantly justifying. But no other choice is left to me. I left the Republican Party to become an independent many years ago, but continued to vote for the GOP in presidential elections (holding my nose to do so in most instances) because I believed the alternative in the other "major" party to be much worse. But the nomination of Romney makes the prospect of voting Republican completely untenable, and severs once and for all any ties that remained between me and my former party. This has been made evident by the mockery to which my social conservative and constitutionalist beliefs have been subjected by Romney's supporters. My vote and my voice are no longer welcomed by the GOP, and I will oblige them by not voting for that party's presidential nominee for the first time since I became eligible to vote over a quarter of a century ago.

And THEREIN lies the opportunity for the Constitution Party to reach disaffected voters like me who are "free agents" for the first time. I suspect that, as with any party, among your top priorities is increasing your vote totals from prior years and gaining additional respect as a viable 3rd-party option to the "major" parties, while still remaining true to your principles. And although I'm not at the moment a member of your party, I deeply share your principles. Your commitment to following the Constitution as adopted by our Founders, and more importantly for me, your commitment to being the only 100% pro-life party in the country, represent a set of values and a philosophy that I have held for almost all my life. That I choose to remain an independent for the time being is in no way a reflection of the esteem in which I hold the Constitution Party.

As an independent, I have no say in who you choose to nominate. And I cannot and will not try to tell you what to do. That is your choice to make as to what you see as the best direction for your party to take. I certainly cannot blame you for choosing not to take the advice of an outsider. However, if you will indulge me, I will share with you what it will take to receive my vote and, although I won't flatter myself to speak for each and every such voter, what I suspect it may take to win over the votes of those who find themselves freshly disenfranchised from the GOP by the untenable prospect of having to cast a vote for Mitt Romney.

I have high regard for the office of the Presidency of these United States, notwithstanding the way in which the office has been degraded throughout the years by unconstitutional usurpations of power, and particularly debased by the current occupant of that office. The respect I hold for the office is a direct reflection of the esteem in which I hold the person whom the Founders had in mind when the office of the Presidency was originally designed. Our first and greatest President, George Washington, was a man who was in many ways uniquely qualified to fill the role. He had been a commander of militia in the French and Indian Wars, he had been elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses (the forerunner of the Virginia House of Delegates), he had been elected to the Continental Congress, he had been Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, and he had been President of the Constitutional Convention. George Washington is perhaps more responsible than any other individual for bringing this Republic into being. And although I do not believe we will ever see his like again, nor do I believe that every candidate seeking the Presidency should have the exact same impossible-to-duplicate qualifications for the office as did he, out of respect for the man and the office he originated, not to mention the grave duties and responsibilities commensurate to the office, I believe that the Office of the Presidency is not and cannot be an entry-level job into governance.

For that reason, whenever I have in the past considered voting for a 3rd-party candidate for President, I have shied away after considering said candidate's qualifications for office. Don't get me wrong: some fine men and women have chosen the 3rd-party route to seek the Presidency; but, for me, voting for a Presidential candidate is more than just about agreeing with someone on the issues and principles; it is also about voting for the person who is best qualified to represent and put into effect those principles as President. And some modicum of a track record of experience is important to me when making that decision.

That is why I was excited to learn in February that Virgil Goode had announced his candidacy for the Presidency under the Constitution Party banner. Here was a candidate that I knew personally from my days of living in his congressional district. Here was a candidate with experience in the Virginia House of Delegates Senate, with the experience of a run for Governor, and with experience in the U.S. House of Representatives. Here was a candidate who had served honorably and with integrity as a Democrat, as an independent, and as a Republican. Here was a candidate with a record of conservatism, who shares my pro-life and limited government principles. Here was a man for whom I could vote for President on a 3rd-party ticket and not feel like I was settling for someone without the experience and qualifications that I believe the office merits. I do not intend this in any way to detract from the fine qualities of character that the other candidates for the Constitution Party have; instead, I write this to point out that Virgil Goode's background uniquely qualifies him among all of those candidates to offer Constitution Party voters an experienced alternative to Obama and Romney, with an appeal outside of the party to a broad cross-section of disaffected Democrats, Republicans, and independents longing for a viable 3rd-party option. With Virgil Goode on the ticket, my belief is that voters who might not normally vote 3rd party, in general, or the Constitution Party, in particular, will see that they do not have to sacrifice experience and electoral viability by voting for a 3rd-party candidate. THAT is the opportunity presented by Romney's nomination by the GOP, by Obama's fecklessness and blatantly unconstitutional power grabs, and by the decision of Virgil Goode to seek the Constitution Party nomination.

Again, the choice is yours to make, and I only offer my view on the matter as an independent voter who shares your ideals and goals. Take it for whatever you feel it's worth. But it is my sincere hope and prayer that Consititution Party members and delegates make the most of this opportunity and nominate someone with the experience and leadership and track record of independence and commitment to constitutional conservatism that Virgil Goode has to offer.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Jay Anderson
Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate