Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
Goodness.
Newt made a good point in the debate the other night and if they had given him a chance to respond to Ron Paul I think he would have brought Mr Constitution down a notch. The Constitution sets the existence and function of the Supreme Court. It leaves it to congress to create the lower courts.
But two out of three? Is Newt serious? Does he not believe in the reason behind the checks in checks and balances?
He is right that there is something wrong with the Judicial system. Its one thing to strike down laws when they are unconstitutional. Its quite another to legislate from the bench or “direct” the other branches to establish laws.
“The founding fathers designed the Constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power - not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches.”
Well thats exactly what we have right now with the un-challenged rule by Executive Orders.
It has been the illegal use of Ex. Orders starting with 12582 in 1994 and continuing up to this year with several more that have accomplished the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21. All without Congressional approval of any kind.
Remember Clinton’s boy Paul Bergala stating “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool huh?”
Yes, there is something rotten in our judicial system. But two out of three is definitely not in the Constitution, and definitely NOT the answer.
Newt is way out of line with this. I was ready to hold my nose and support him. Not anymore.
Best two out of three sounds like Newt’s marriage philosophy rather than an interpretation of the constitution.
It’s not in the Constitution like this, Mr. Gingrich.
A new structure wont fix the problems in the judiciary. This is one of those situations where “we dont need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have.”
Way to give Obummer all the ammo he needs to destroy you, Newt.
Good Lord does ANY REPUBLICAN understand the concept of bluff and guile or is that just a Democrat trait?
Idiots. I give up on the whole lot of them.
He sounds like a BIG government progressive to me...
He didn’t say it was a simple matter of 2/3. He said if the other two branches didn’t favor a ruling, the Court “would lose.” Not by mere count but by actions taken by the other two branches. It’s pretty obvious the Legislature can go around a ruling, even without the President. Or if the Legislature and Judiciary have decided that the President ought to back off, reverse course or even step down — he’d better.
Gingrich tried to make it simple for a brief interview. Anyone who understands what’s meant by “tyrants in black robes” ought to be thanking him for bringing this issue to the fore.
We are thisclose to having 5 solid commies on the Supreme Court. If you DON’T want the country governed by Kagan, the Wize Latina, et al, think real hard about what Newt said.
Roe V. Wade was maybe the worst case of abuse of power in the history of the country.
They simply made it up out of thin air overturning centuries of common law and real law too.
His point is well taken, but I think a killer for a POTUS campaign.
I’d like to see Gingrich pursue a course espousing the disposal of each, and every unconstitutional department of government, thus the supporting bureaucracies crammed to overflowing with entrenched Leftists that are ruling our country today.
These departments with these vast bureaucracies such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and so many more are run, and staffed by unelected entrenched Leftists whom remain in those positions of power, and influence until they either retire, or die.
They are the ones running the country, and they are the ones that if we get rid of their departments one by one, thus their bureaucracies we reduce the Leftist influence as we eliminate each of those departments that is strangling our Constitutional Republic.
I haven’t got all the way through the video yet, but did Newt even literally say “Government branches should rule 2 out of 3”—or did the media just misleadingly paraphrase his position that way?
If so, why are Freepers falling all over themselves to drink media kool-aid on this? Heh.
Nice to see the rival campaign activists have ruined the thread by the second post. No need to read anymore of their spinning.
Merry Christmas
Thomas Jefferson said if the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Getting harder and harder to support Newt. I wonder where he comes up with some of the stuff he says?
I love Newt’s insistence that a president CAN ignore some scumbag federal judge, or even a liberal activist Supreme Court which oversteps its bounds - - telling the Commander-in-Chief how to run the armed force or defend the nation from foreign enemies, for example - - but I think he is oversimplifying things with this “two out of three” and thereby confusing easily-confused liberals.
“Gingrich continued to defend his controversial position that Congress and the president should have the authority to ignore the rulings of federal judges when they disagree with them.”
FWIW, this exact power is given to Parliament, in the Canadian Constitution. (The “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)
That is not controversial in the least.