Posted on 02/04/2005 2:22:09 PM PST by cpforlife.org
CHICAGO - Pro-lifers here have been engrossed in a book issued two weeks ago by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich which may point to a solution to woes social conservatives have with the federal judiciary. Gingrich was a dependable pro-life vote when he served in Congress, but never exactly a champion of the movement. Yet in his book Winning the Future (Regnery, Washington, D.C., 2005), he outlines probably a last-ditch, nuclear strategy that can restore the balance between Congress and the judiciary that the founders intended.
The book is ostensibly tied to his possible run for president in 2008: That he entertains even the slightest hint of running for president involves a great deal of chutzpah. Given his track record as speaker, there is little doubt that, brilliant as he is, a President Gingrich would be the same disaster he was as speaker.
He is unsurpassed when it comes to molding issues to fit a strategy, but he cannot stand political prosperity. After victory he messes up by applying arrogance and disdain to his followers. In the early 1980s he designed a battle plan to win a Republican majority in the House that will forever be a model for those seeking victory.
Once he became speaker, however, he kept key allies in the dark on his quick changes of mind in mid-legislative battle; boldly sought to tame President Clinton by shutting down the government, then lost his nerve; allowed his personal goals to overshadow the , speakership; ran the risk of ethics censure from a lucrative book and: teaching deal; permitted his noisy objection over not getting a preferential seat on Clinton's plane to distract from news coverage of his program.
These things and his being married three times, the latest to an ex-staffer with whom he conducted a tumultuous affair which erupted during the Clinton impeachment, revealed his weaknesses. With ex-allies turning against him, he resigned his seat for a lucrative sinecure as a lecturer and TV commentator.
But Gingrich's failings as a leader do not subtract from his brilliant conceptual grasp of politics. Despite his manifold errors, he built a majority that survived him, having achieved the rust tax cut in 16 years, welfare reform (reducing those on welfare by 60%), the first four balanced budgets since the 1920s, the first financial audit of the House in history and term limits for committee chairmen.
More than anyone else, Gingrich resembles Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was a renaissance man: excellent scholar, soldier, cunning lawyer, self-taught economics wizard, rhetorical genius. While he reported to George Washington, a man of superb judgment and common sense, Hamilton had no peer. Relying on his own judgment, he soon allowed bitterness and quarrels to defeat him. A sexual scandal caused him to retreat to the backroom.
Similarly, when Gingrich had Dick Armey (R., Texas) and Bill Paxton (R., N.Y.) to test his ideas on, he followed a prudent course. Once elected speaker he relied upon no one but himself and went bottoms up. So the good that comes from Gingrich stems from his ideas, not from him in the role of presidential candidate. Two vitally important chapters in the book are "The Centrality of Our Creator in Defining America" and "Bringing the Courts Back 'Under the Constitution". He does not elucidate on pro-life as such, but draws an eloquent battle plan for taming the federal judiciary.
As pro-lifers know, article IlI, section 1 of the Constitution gives members of the Supreme Court lifetime tenure during what it stipulates as "good behavior." Also, Congress has the power to withdraw certain legal subject matters from Supreme Court review, in section 2, subsection 2 which reads: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact" - and here is the key phrase -- "with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
The power given Congress over the courts is outlined in The Federalist, nn. 80 and 81, written by Hamilton. And it has been used before: by liberals with the Norris-LaGuardia Act in the 1930s and by conservatives in 1996 with the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act, limiting the Supreme Court's power to review death penalty cases involving terrorists.
A scant majority in the past has kept Republicans from doing it with respect to abortion. Gingrich attests that the time may well be at hand to utilize it on behalf of the; Creator, citing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under God" is unconstitutional. A possible Supreme Court agreement by a 5 to 4 vote endangers our Judeo-Christian heritage, he says, as indeed it does.
The wonder of it all is that Gingrich, a truly revolutionary thinker, has not prescribed the tactic for pro-life: but he has not. One reason may be that in his philosophy he is heavily libertarian. Now with the subject of the Creator he has come aboard.
The National Anvil
Gingrich's proposal is as simple as it is radical. Congress passes a bill which the president signs into law that describes the legitimacy of "our Creator" in undergirding American rights. If the court finds the legislation is unconstitutional, Congress finds those justices who so believe as falling short of "good behavior," the constitutional requirement for judges. You can imagine the liberal insurrection that will occur when the Congress does this.
Will we be antagonized unendingly by impeachment trials? There's a quick way which is as old as the public purse. Congress should simply eliminate the judgeships and thereby cut their pay. "Thus," he summarizes, "much of the 9th circuit could find themselves without a court to serve on." That is the brilliant Gingrich who has become a priceless national resource.
For many of us, Gingrich (Ph.D. history - Tulane) has an overabundance of imperfection – but it is in idea implementation, not with the ideas themselves. In the coming years he will serve as an excellent hammer with which to pound out ideas on the national anvil. The sparks from that forge should serve the nation well.
In a 1-14-05 article from Susan Wills, Esq., associate director for education, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
And no one seriously suggests that Roe be protected because of its legal merit. Since 1973, six Supreme Court justices and scores of legal articles have criticized Roe and Doe for inventing a right to abortion not found in the Constitution and for usurping the right of states and the people to fashion laws that reflect their views on abortion. As a distinguished law professor, Michael S. Paulsen, put it: “Roe is an embarrassment—perhaps the worst work-product the Court has ever produced. … Roe’s reasoning is utterly laughable, a running joke in constitutional law circles.”
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/011405.htm
Jim,
Clearly this scan shows the accurate title of this article as I had originally posted it. Someone changed it to "The Answer for Pro-Lifers?" Can you please return it to it's full and original title.
Speaker Gingrich adds a great deal to the title and the story is about his strategy.
Thank you, Sir.
God bless.
This is the title you posted. No one changed it.
With all due respect to Mr. Gingrich, he is completely full of sh!t in this matter.
He was the Speaker of the House, for crying out loud. This had always been an option that he could have pursued . . . what the hell was he waiting for?
Now...
Admin Moderator:
This is the title you posted. No one changed it.
Do you have a screen shot of the shortened headline?
Either the mod is trying to save face with Jim, or I'm off your ping list.
I'm leaning towards to mod in that this was a publicity stunt.
Tarp.
My whole point in posting this thread is to raise awarenss that Congress has the authority to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts on matters related to abortion--as well as all social issues.
Congress can correct the courts AND DOES when it WANTS TO. See link in 3.
I'm looking at a credibility issue between you and FR staff. Which is it?
Which brings us to our current Congress and President. They can pass this and Bush would surely sign into law, yet no one in the Pro-Life movement is championing it.
We the People Act (HR 3893)- Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Okay, you skipped right over the mod's post and went for Alberta's Child.
Looks like I'm next on your 'to do' list.
I think Gingrich did a lot of great things in Washington, and I agree he's got a great political mind in many respects. But let's be honest here . . . he's really no different than any other Beltway has-been who has a lot of things to say about the political process and a lot of advice to offer despite his own failure to capitalize on the opportunities as they were presented to him.
Which brings us to our current Congress and President. They can pass this and Bush would surely sign into law, yet no one in the Pro-Life movement is championing it.
People mistakenly assume that just because the GOP has a majority in both Houses of Congress, they'll be able to pass any legislation like this. The reality is that the GOP doesn't even have enough votes on its own side of the aisle to do this -- let alone any Democrat attempt to filibuster it in the U.S. Senate. Does anyone really think people like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee are going to support this?
Even-more so Beelzabubba Klinton would certianly have vetoed the bill and there was NO WAY there was a 2/3 majority to override.
This is precisely where Gingrich was a master in Washington, because it never prevented him from passing any legislation at all. He would gladly seize upon the opportunity to pass a bill knowing full well that Clinton intended to veto it -- because Clinton could potentially pay a steep price for doing so. In fact, Gingrich probably had Clinton figured out quite well by the time the 1996 election rolled around. Clinton was such an unprincipled opportunist that he had signed almost every element of GOP's "Contract With America" into law.
IMHO, if anyone really thinks the repubilcan party wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal, I have a very nice bridge to sell you, real cheap, it's on sale now. Any offers?
Now you attempt to bring my honesty into question and propose that I staged a "publicity stunt".
I DON"T THINK SO TARP. I don't take kindly to that at all, especially from a newbie with no track record.
I've had enough. I'll ask you nicely to please leave me alone. I have removed you from my list, join someone else and badger them.
The reason I Freep is for Pro-Life, not to squabble over nothingness.
Goodbye and God bless
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.
