Posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:01 PM PST by EveningStar
GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose...
Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Guess it boils down to that.
Show me where in the U.S. Constitution law does it say the Judicial Branch have to respond to a Subpoena from the Legislative branch?
He can and would right this minute if he wanted to.
“If Newt really said this he is unfathomably stupid.”
I find that most of the things people say he said weren’t really said. It’s just what their small brains thought they heard. They should record what he says and make a transcript and sit down and read it before running to the microphone and announcing to the world how stupid they themselves really are.
Shhhh.... don't say it too loud.
Eons ago I read in NR an editorial that in fact Congress could at the Federal Level overturn Roe v Wade if the had to cohones to do so...
You sound like a legal eagle tell me if I am wrong or right?
Good post. Thank you.
Apparently you haven’t read it.
The Federalist papers are an opinion.
You need the show me the law that says the Judicial Branch have to respond to the subpoenas from the Legislative branch or face arrest?
Only ONE Supreme Court Justice has ever been formally “impeached” by the House of Representatives, and NO Supreme Court justice has EVER been “removed from office” by the Senate.
1804- Samuel Chase (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was accused by the House of Representatives of letting his political leanings affect his rulings and served him with eight articles of impeachment. One article concerned Chase’s handling of the trial of John Fries; two concerned his conduct in the trial of James Callender; four concerned Chase’s procedural errors on various matters; and the eighth article had to do with Chase’s “intemperate and inflammatory”; “indecent and unbecoming”; “highly unwarrantable”; and “highly indecent” remarks made to a Baltimore grand jury. In 1805, the Senate acquitted Chase of all charges. Chase continued to serve until his death in 1811.
1957- Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed were all named in a resolution passed by the Georgia General Assembly and signed by Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin. Nothing ever came of this effort. The resolution was titled “The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices”, and targeted the six Supreme Court Justices who were believed to be enabling communism with their decisions “for usurping the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8”; for “violations of Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment”; and for “nullification of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.” Signs were erected across the south saying “Impeach Earl Warren”, many of which were still standing when Warren retired from the bench in 1969.
1969- Abe Fortas was almost impeached due to a tax and financial scandal involving Wall Street financier, Louis Wolfson. When President Richard Nixon learned of the scandal, he said Fortas should be “off of there”. The House of Representatives had already taken preliminary steps toward impeachment. Chief Justice Earl Warren urged Fortas to resign, to save the reputation of the Court. Fortas resisted at first, but eventually stepped down “to avoid damaging his wife’s legal career”.
The Judicial Branch is the Supreme Court only. The Federal Courts are created and controlled by the Legislative Branch.
Not to mention the ignorance about this issue on FR. The same people, that, for years have demanded our officials follow the Constitution now cower in fear of its proposed implementation.
I like the fact that Newt is willing to discuss the tough issues that are hamstringing our country and do not think he has the attitude that he will perform the changes via Fiat.
1. Saying he melts when Bill Clinton is in his presence.
The consensus from a host of conservatives is that Bill is charming.
2. Saying the reason he was shagging his mistresses was b/c he loved his country so much.
I would like to see the actual quote to see the context.
3. Saying that Obama has the right to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Newt gave examples of historical precedent for this in the interview for context.
4. Saying Obama has the right to abolish the 5th circuit court of appeals.
Newt gave examples of historical precedent for this in the interview.
5. Praised the business model of Fannie/Freddie.
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates.
6. Has called for the federal government to have the power to force me to buy health insurance.
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates and declared the Heritage Foundation and he were wrong on this.
7. Held said view publicly until May 2011, which just happened to be the month that he stated he would declare his bid for the presidency.
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates and declared the Heritage Foundation and he were wrong on this.
8. Nancy Pelosi
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates and was trying to bipartisanly involve conservatives in the discussion.
9. Has called for "green" conservatism.
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates, stating conservatives need to take the lead in the discussion.
10. Has said he let the government shut down b/c Bill Clinton ignored him on an Air Force 1 flight, then had to sit back and watch said Clinton release a photo of Clinton talking to him on said flight.
I would like to see the actual quote to see the context (this would be juvenile if true).
10. Supported TARP.
GW Bush's TARP action was most likely helpful to the country and has been completely paid back by the organizations that benefited as was required in the proposal (Unlike Obama's Stimulus package).
11. Supported Medicare D passage.
I would like to see the actual policy he espoused to see the context.
12. Supported Cap/Trade.
Newt has discussed this openly in the debates, stating his legislative policies have all been opposed to Cap/Trade.
“...Show me where in the U.S. Constitution law does it say the Judicial Branch have to respond to a Subpoena from the Legislative branch?...”
-
Show me where it says they don’t.
Nope. Read it on FR. FReegards!!
Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges.
Read more: Impeachment History — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html#ixzz1gvSYPqeu
“If that’s so clear, then what’s the point of this thread”
This thread is in response to the article by “The Hill”.
It looks like you are having a hard time grasping things.
EXACTLY!! Thank you. Who would have thunk the obvious isn’t obvious on a conservative site?
1. What exactly did he do to get paid? Give advice? Did it come in the form of a written report? Oral presentations? Was it a single report which would be a pretty easy $1.5 million? How many people worked on them? Just Newt and/or Callista? Again, that's pretty sweet.
2. Where are the reports? Make them public. If Freddie has lost them, Newt should have copies. If everyone has lost them I'm going to have trouble buying Newt (although I'll still vote for him over 0.
3. How was he paid? Billable hours? Flat fee?
If Newt provided Freddie with a series of consultations that he can back up with written reports, agendas & copies of Power Point presentations, and showed that they were produced with a staff via invoice with billable hours and expenses, and is willing to make public these records and show what he advised all will be cleared up, and he will have a very good chance of getting my vote.
If not, he has no chance of getting my primary vote.
Thanks for that info. I have heard of the Executive Branch doing thing.
It kind of reminds me of Executive Orders. They only apply to the Executive Branch. I remember people getting all upset thinking it overrides the legislative Branch. It does not.
This whole thing is a slippery slope. It’s always great thing to give one branch of government of power over another... as long as you agree with it. However, if the wrong people get in charge, then it can be used against us.
We have to be careful when we talking about strengthening the power of government. After all it can be used against us if the wrong people get put in charge.
“I am so disappointed in Freepers lately.....they are just falling for anything the media says WITHOUT checking it out on their own.....it’s starting to disgust me.”
I know what you mean. I was hoping we had a higher caliber of people here on average but it appears Free Republic is not different than anywhere else going by the responses in this thread and others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.