Posted on 12/18/2011 4:23:33 PM PST by presidio9
Newt Gingrich on Sunday reiterated his argument that there is something "profoundly wrong" with the United States' judicial system, and argued that the balance of power in American government should come down to "two out of three" branches of the government.
In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," 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.
Citing what he describes as "extreme behavior" on the party of the judicial system, Gingrich proposes a system wherein "it's always two out of three."
"If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses," said Gingrich. "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."
"How does the president decide what's a good law and 'I'm going to obey the Supreme Court,' or what's a bad law and 'I'm just going to ignore it?'" asked CBS' Bob Schieffer.
"I think it depends on the severity of the case," Gingrich responded. "I'm not suggesting that the Congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions... in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields, it's utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense of the United States. It's a violation of
But how do you fix it when virtually every law school in the country is drunk with their own arrogance?
>>””How does the president decide what’s a good law and ‘I’m going to obey the Supreme Court,’ or what’s a bad law and ‘I’m just going to ignore it?’” asked CBS’ Bob Schieffer. >>
Listen to the unspoken message by Bob S - that how dare a mere mortal person actually question what 9 immortals in black robes rule on.
I agree completely and that’s why I have been shamelessly pimping Newt’s paper here on FR. There is a ton of good information in it. I knew of course about Marbury v. Madison, but I had no idea about the Aaron decision. Apparently is was even more influential in the slide towards oligarchy than Marbury was.
A congressman, senator and president may be impeached...why not a federal judge if they are violating the constitution? there have been several federal judges impeached and one arrested by the fbi in the not too distant past.
Curious as to how everyone will feel IF the SCOTUS rules in favor of Obamacare and sides with Obama on the lawsuits against AZ and other states.
The Federal Government Party insiders are going all out on this fascist crap, aren't they? Something - probably the upcoming economic collapse - has really got them spooked.
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.
Well, I was trying to make the point that Marbury doesn’t even say what they say it says. I guess I failed to get that across effectively.
Marshall didn’t lay claim to the power they say he did today. All he claimed is the duty to follow the Constitution, just the same as the officers of all the branches.
Schieffer would simply be lost trying to follow threads here on FR.....let alone debating Newt.
So let me get this straight. Let’s say in Obama’s first two years the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, then Obama and the Dem congress makes 2 out of 3 and Obama, Nancy and Harry overrule the SC, is Newt gonna be fine with that?
I think Newt makes some good points at times, but many of his ideas are just dangerous. Not sure I can support him if he is Pubs nominee.
Thank you for that.
A fresh breeze of clarity wafting through the smudge.
Sometimes I’m just too disappointed by what seems like a dilution of what FR used to be to rebut.
The can do that now. If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare and he ignores them, who will stop him? Only the Congress can stop him through impeachment, and if they don't, the people have to change the Congress or change the Executive. It already works that way.
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.
So is your point that Newt is OK with it as it is?
Yes, we have a mess but as I read it this idea makes it even worse. Under this scenario Congress could impeach the President, then the President could make a deal with the Judiciary and ignore impeachment. Musical chairs version of "you scratch my back" with the idea to get just one other branch on your side in any dispute.
you opine: “He sounds like a BIG government progressive to me...”
**********************************
for example:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/gingrichs-unimpeachable-conservative-credential/
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/14/newts_past_and_future_leadership_112396.html
**************
Yep - He sounds like a BIG government progressive... OH WAIT
You read it wrong.
The Constitution and the Federalist Papers are 'outside the box"?
Who knew...
Come to think of it - they were at the time -- and are now, in that they are the foundation for the freest country in the world.
You prefer Socialism?
“Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare only to have President Obama and Congress ignore the ruling!”
I tend to agree with most of your points, but in your above hypothetical, at least the people could replace members of congress and the Executive (via elections), whereas lifetime Supreme Court appointees making “final forevermore” decisions are left without a proper “check”. I’m not convinced the threat of impeachment would do the trick either.
Newt’s solution may not be the answer, but I believe something needs to be done to prevent the Judicial from continuing to take more power than was originally envisioned by the Framers.
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.