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?
Gingrich is also right when he says that the Framers had intended for the Judicial to be the weakest branch of the government. This was a reaction to the abuses of royal appointments in the English system. In fact, Article III makes no mention of lifetime appointments.
As usual, Ron Paul talks out of his ass, and ignores facts when they are not convenient.
There’s no doubt that Newt Gingrich is right about judicial overreach. The US Supreme Court is undoubtedly out of control. However, I completely disagree with Newt’s proposed solution, because imagine if the left decided to do the same thing! Like you wrote, there are checks and balances already available to maintain co-equal branches of government.
There’s no doubt I’d love to see a lot of judges impeached. Some of them really need impeaching, so that the rest of the black robed tyrants learn a bit of restraint. That’s the problem there. Congress has abdicated most of its power to control the courts for the simple reason the left likes tyranny, but impeachment is still an option.
This 2 out of 3 branches won’t fix the problem. It would only make it worse. How can Newt and other conservatives possibly forget the first two years of the Obama administration when we were hoping and praying the Supreme Court would somehow help slow down the left’s mad rush? Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare only to have President Obama and Congress ignore the ruling!
The problem isn’t with the courts but with the judges themselves.
I would also return to informing the jurors of their rights under the law. That in itself would go a long way toward fixing the courts.
Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
What is your understanding of the Judicial Branch when it comes to making laws? Are they not SUPPOSED TO BE the three in the two out of three?
A court cannot legitimately tell a President how to conduct a war. Newt disagrees that Scotus can dictate how to treat POWs or “enemy combatants.” He would ignore that ruling, as any President should, for it intruded upon his historic CIC duties.
State courts have ordered cities to raise taxes for schools. Mittens famously rolled over when ordered by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to pass a law that legalized fag marriage. In both of these cases, the Governors should have held a presser to inform the courts they would not be obeyed.
Imagine if Obama said this. An Obama/Pelosi Government running roughshod over the courts and the People.
Yes, it does.
Please cite article and section that confers on the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, to declare laws unConstitutional, or to impose on the Congress or the Executive its own opinion on the above subjects.
Do you?
As the only Speaker to impeach a sitting president in more than 100 years, you have to ask if he believes in checks and balances?
Two out of three is often the "check" in the system.
President nominates to the high court, the Senate, in theory makes sure they're well qualified appointments. That's two out of three, with the House excluded. But congress alone can also impeach and remove an executive or a judge/justice and yet that's "two out of three" in the sense both the House and Senate must agree.
Since congress can exclude items from judicial review, a congress and a president can limit what legislation judges can review. Two out of three.
Neither a president nor the judiciary are involved in amending the constitution although a "check" does come via state ratification.
You act as if his "two out of three" is somehow shocking and unAmerican. Instead it's the system already in place, just described in a way perhaps you haven't considered.
Newt did not propose 2 out of 3. He attempted to explain the checks and balances using a 2 out of 3 sort of example to illustrate that no one branch of the government is supreme above the others and that they are all co-equal branches.
He has also said that the federalist papers reveal that the founders thought the Court to be the least powerful (not co-equal?).
Ultimately, I believe that Congress was intended to be the strongest, because the people's house is designed to be the most responsive to the people and the people are supposed to be self governing.
Congress has a great deal of power over the judiciary, but have not used it much in recent years. The executive branch is supposed to implement the laws that Congress passes, though they have continually ceded power to the presidency.
The states have ceded their power to the feds by no longer appointing the Senators, and by taking Uncle Sugar's money which has strings attached.
The checks and balances designed by the original constitution have been distorted throughout the years. It all needs to be reversed, but Newt is also right when he points out that the Government needs to get the people on the side of the reform you propose.
Obama and the Dems overplayed their hand when the steam rolled over the desire of the people with Obama care, and the stimulus etc without the agreement of the people, and 2010 began the process of throwing them out on their keester.
Should the Pubbies retake the Senate and the Presidency while retaining the House, they should remember why the Dems reign was so short, lest they be a casualty before the Republic can be restored.
Given the Judicary no longer respects the constitution in many decisions (even taking into consideration international law that does not apply legally to the US), it is perfectly logical that the Congress would use it’s power to question them on extreme anti-constitutional decisions. They may not be fit to serve as judges and need to be removed from power!
If we really want the constitution back, we are going to have to change the current events, beliefs and authorities. However, you can imagine how the Marxists in the GOP and DNC would use this method to intimate judges who go against them in upholding the constitition, to toally kill the constitution.
Judges are not respecting their duty to protect the constitutional rights and structure over Congress and the President when they issue laws and take actions that violate the constitutional rights of citizens. We need to change this balance of power. But liberals will use it to deconstruct the constitution.
Risk worth taking? Who do we impose the authority of the original meaning of the constitution upon the judicial branch so they will enforce it upon the Executive Branch and Congress once again? At least Grinrich is thinking about getting the US out from under this dictatorship that hates the constitution!
Of course, Newt is right.
Abortion has never been debated in Congress and voted acceptable. It has been imposed by a judiciary that found a right to kill babies in a penumbra of an emanation.
Why, really, do 9 justices have more knowledge of the intent of the Constitution than do some 500 legislators and a president with an entire justice system?
They don’t. It’s a misapplication of the Constitution that clearly makes Scotus subservient to the Congress.
Here’s his actual position paper. Read it if you dare.
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution:
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
The Constitution is largely silent about the powers of the Court. or even its make-up. Only the office of Chief Justice is named. But judicial power over the states and its citizens is supreme, just as the legislative and executive powers are supreme over them. We tend to idolalize the Constitution, but its opponets==the Anti-federalists== had a clearer view. If you can get ahold of it, I suggest you lok at “The debate on the Constitution” published by the Library of America. A fellow I had never heard of, Samuel Bryan,” calling himself Centinel, Pretty much predicts the consolidation of power in the central government which we see today. Westward expansion and the many new states prevented this consolidation until after the Civil War, until we had formed this sea-to-sea and beyond empire. But it has gone on rentlesslessly for a hundred years. Call it progressivism, call it what you will, what we have to day is a local consequence—not the only one—but one of the alternative routes that flows naturally from the founding document. The accidents of history have determined the course. “I do not determine events,”Lincoln once said, “Events determine me.” Likewise the shape of this government. Today’s government is rooted in the Constitution of 1789, and the evils we conseratives deplore are implicit in it, and predicted more than 220 years ago by now forgotten prophets.