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.
(ala Johny Carson)
A: "Coleus"
Q: "To whom will cpforlife.org's next reply be to."
"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?"
Excellent points as usual AC. I stopped making ASSumptions about political parties, especially in regardgs to abortion years ago. I do sometimes throw out an idea to offer hope for this bleak situation which possibly could help focus on the GOP's inaction on this.
Your motives are the best, but I suspect that you have just pulled a ruse.
The mod has flatly claimed that your headline was not altered, yet you say "I know what was on my screen" to me without addressing the accusation directly to the mod.
"I DON"T THINK SO TARP"
Now that helped a lot, didn't it?
No, I think I'll nitpick just a bit more, if you don't mind.
You are looking quite a lot like the "fight or flight" mode is kicking in.
Who is being dishonest? Was the headline altered, or are you lying to me?
You just hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!
"the republican party will not push to reverse roe v. wade, they can't since the will lost the Pro life democrat base and will subsequently lose elections and lose power."
So the Pro-Life Movement is forever stuck between a rock and a hard place with no options the Pro-Life leadership will even entertain.
It can be said by the GOP that If we do what you Pro-Lifers are proposing we will loose power and you will be destroyed by an empowered Pro-Abort DNC back in control!
So we stay where we are and wait for things to change. Well it looks like the current situation in DC is as Pro-Life as it will get, maybe a bit more of an increase in the mid-term 2006. After Bush's term noone has a clue, but I'd guess it won't get better.
And that is the genius of Congressman Paul's We the People Act (HR 3893). It unites the Pro-Life, Pro Traditional Marraige, and Pro First Amendment constituencies together. It would remedy the problems all three of these groups have with the judiciary. If these three groups cannot unite and sucessfully direct their elected representatives to correct the courts on these matters, I'd have to say things are very bleak indeed.
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.
If people would take the time to read S 3, the so-called ban on partial birth abortion; they will find out that it does NOT ban Partial Birth Abortion!
believe it or not, there is a "clause" allowing the baby to still be murdered so long as his navel is not showing.
I wish someone could prove me wrong on this one, it's making me think very little about Rick Santorum, Chris Smith and the rest of the "pro lifers" who pulled the wool over our eyes.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Moreover the process of Partial Birth Abortion takes three days.
When does a procedure REQUIRED to save the life of the mother take 3 days!
Why not induce labor and just deliver, or do a c-section and skip the part where they jab sissors in the back of the child's head and suction out their brains.
The sole purpopse of PBA and all abortions is to kill the child and make money. Not help the mother. Just stating the obvious.
Well, how about calling the FR staff dishonest? Does that sound like a good plan for trumpeting any agenda on FR?
I kind of took it that issue was over and handled. You keep bringing it up.
If they changed the title then cpforlife was correct and much to nice.
He has one of the best pro life web sites I've ever seen, looked at by millions, I think his methods are great and you haven't given me any suggestions. Can you do better?
The author of this thread has, in essence, accused the mods of lying.
The author of this thread has also refused to address the matter, so far.
While a member of our cause, I can still turn my back on a charlatan.
Good post.
"promote the pro-life cause"
Does having a son count? Converting my sister - producing my second nephew, does that count?
How about Church? Does that count?
How about the poster admitting that this was a ruse for publicity? Does that count?
You bet!
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal.
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.