Contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001, John@ParentsRightsCoalition.org; www.MassResistance.org

WALTHAM, Mass., July 11 /Standard Newswire/ -- Twenty-two conservative leaders will release a letter this week challenging the National Review's "puff work" for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, implying the magazine is abandoning constitutionalism and the social conservative grassroots by ignoring, for example, that:

• Romney's stance and record after his "awakening" are not pro-life.
  
  
• The Massachusetts Constitution says the people are bound only by laws ratified by the legislature; and only the legislature can suspend or alter laws. Romney unconstitutionally acted as if judges legalized homosexual "marriage."

John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition notes NR's glaring refusal to face the implications of a devastating 2004 National Review article illuminating why opportunistic lawyers such as Jay Sekulow, radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, and (NR blogger) David French whitewash Romney's unconstitutional actions:

"The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage...it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding... [E]even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate...the premises that gave to the courts...supremacy in our constitutional schemes." -- Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence

Haskins also noted revered conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly's assessment:

"Massachusetts public officials ... are groveling before the four judges...  (Romney) said: 'We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and ... decide "what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.'  But what 'law'? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages."

A magazine that conservatives grew up with has legitimized a charlatan who trashed a constitution," Haskins said. "Notwithstanding the constitutional nihilism of French, no legal training is needed to read English. Constitutions are not for lawyers to lock away from prying eyes, but for laymen as defense against the Frenches, Hewitts and Romneys of the world." 

NR also conspicuously failed to report a detailed, provocative letter forty-four conservative leaders sent Romney disproving his claim that he "enforced the law" by imposing homosexual "marriage" though the Legislature refused to legalize it. Law professors and constitutional attorneys have affirmed the conclusions of the letter, which urged Romney to reverse his illegal orders. Signers included Paul Weyrich, an architect of the Reagan revolution; Robert Knight, a draftsman of the Defense of Marriage Act; Sandy Rios of the Culture Campaign (former president of Concerned Women for America); Phil Lawler, editor of Catholic World News; Phil Likoudis, editor of The Wanderer; and attorney Gary Kreep (United States Justice Foundation). 

In contrast to NR spiking coverage of both letters, Kathryn Jean Lopez, their dedicated Romney cheerleader, trumpeted as newsworthy a pro-Romney letter from six "conservatives" of widely varying reputations and conflicts of interest, including some who privately admit Romney failed to defend the constitution.

"Romney's 'pro-life' pose is a states' rights-pro-abortion position," said R.T. Neary, former president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

"Why does NR legitimize Romney's states' rights pretense, though he claims to back a federal amendment on marriage?" asks Robert Paine, pen name of the prominent attorney behind the authoritative proof Romney illegally imposed gay "marriage." "If marriage is a federal issue, isn't killing babies? Romney is simply desperate to portray himself as defending marriage."