Gingrich: Gov't branches should rule 2 out of 3

CBS News ^ | December 18, 2011 | Lucy Madison

[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

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Article III, Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

So if the President and the Courts agree the Congress should pass an appropriation, they win by 2oo3?

[Rethymnon]

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.

A3S1

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..."

Interpreting laws and judicial review are part of "the judicial power." See Marbury v. Madison.

[Rethymnon]

The Jackson nullification is blasted by most historians as ethnic cleansing, but of course the politics and economics of the time are always more complex in context.

Kids, this is what moral relativism looks like.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

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.

You're completely correct. The court is supposed the negate laws passed by congress and negate actions by the executive branch. They are not supposed to create laws themselves.

[plain talk]

Well I disagree. I can’t think of any politician that has publicly stated that they would arrest judges that disagree with them. So that is extreme and bizarre. His two of out three notion is nuts. I don’t want democrat Presidents and Congress arresting Clarence Thomas. I support Newt but every once in a while he blows a gasket.

[lnbjohnson]

I think the constitution is pretty clear that the federal courts are over stepping their roll.

“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 the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The constitution gives the Supreme Court ORIGINAL jurisdiction of issues in which a state is a party (any state law). So the constitution does give any lower federal court the power to rule on any state laws. As we have it now, one federal court can rule prayer in schools is illegal (just an example); in another area another federal judge can rule it legal. Unless the Supreme court rules, the “law” is different in different states, which is unconstitutional in itself.

Plus the power of the supreme court is “under such regulations as the congress shall make.” So congress is given the power to control all federal courts (including the supreme court).

[maine-iac7]

Getting harder and harder to support Newt. I wonder where he comes up with some of the stuff he says?

I wonder why so many Americans accept the status quo - which is unconstitutional - More a Socialist country than a Republic.

You DO know that we are a Republic Nation, not a Democracy?

of course you do....

_{he comes up with 'this stuff' out of the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Try reading them sometime.}

[maine-iac7]

I’m about ready to support Paul at this point geez.

Paul is a nut case - but he is, at least, a constitutionalist. He would most likely agree with Newt....

Suggestion for winter reading: The Constitution and The Federalist Papers.

[Jim Robinson]

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

[maine-iac7]

I was hoping we had on average a higher intellect here on Free Republic but alas that is not the case. It is just like anywhere else.

Alas, you are right.

It's not the FR of old...very disheartening, especially with our country, our freedoms on the line.

And it's going to get much worse and even more trolls, half-truthers and rummybots wills start infiltrating with increasing numbers as the season wears on.

[napscoordinator]

This is dangerous. So this can be used by the Democratic President too. Ignore the conservative laws? For a guy that has long term vision, I am not sure about this.

[CitizenUSA]

Let_It_Be_So: “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.”

I'm not really sure what Newt proposes. Some FReepers seem to think he's describing the existing separation of powers, and he wants the president and congress to start using their defined powers to better restrain the courts. If so, I think we can all pretty much agree with that.

Other FReepers think Newt believes 2 out of 3 branches can simply ignore the 3rd. If true, that sounds even worse than what we have. There are all sorts of legal and constitutional methods for 2 out of 3 branches to restrain an errant 3rd branch.

Are the courts out of control? Yes! Do we need to start impeaching judges? Most definitely! However, who really is to blame for this current mess? Judges rule like they do, because they have de facto immunity from ever being held responsible for their legal transgressions.

Ultimately, the blame is ours for reelecting representatives and senators who refuse to restrain the courts. Truth be told, statists absolutely ADORE the black robed tyrants, because the statists can achieve their aims by judicial fiat without regard to the will of the people.

[Sudetenland]

I suggest you go back and read the Federalist Papers themselves.

The Court does not inherently have the power to overturn any act of Congress. They arrogated that power to themselves in Marbury v. Madison and then again in Cooper v. Aaron they set themselves up as the ultimate power.

But guess what, that's not in the Constitution and it was never in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

The Court was intended to be the weakest, because the Founding Fathers knew the dangers associated with an overweening judiciary they warned of an oligarchy.

[maine-iac7]

I understand well that in politics you sometimes have to compromise your principles with political realism. With all the FReepers supporting Newt, all I can say is that there's a whole lot of compromisin' goin' on out there.

And a whole lot of ignorance of the Constitution going on in here.

Of course, the Constitution isn't taught in the schools anymore, but Socialism is. And there aren't many people who take the time for independent study and research - and so, we have posts like yours.

[RobbyS]

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.

[RobbyS]

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.

[CowboyJay]

"Are they not SUPPOSED TO BE the three in the two out of three?"

No. They're there to effectively veto anything coming out of congress or the executive branch that runs contrary to the Constitution. The real answer of course is to appoint better judges. SCOTUS is the final bulwark against things like dictatorship. Newt wants to do away with that safeguard? The man is an accident waiting to happen.

The real answer of course is to appoint better judges.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

So after 200 years of appointing more and more USSC judges, judges which the President selects and the Senate vets, Marbury v. Madison has never been overturned. Yet you personally feel that it’s unconstitutional.

Do you really think that’s a good argument?

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I've read the Federalist papers, and "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates".

I've developed a real dislike to Hamilton and all those who call themselves Hamiltonian Conservatives.

Today’s government is rooted in the Constitution of 1789, and the evils we conservatives deplore are implicit in it, and predicted more than 220 years ago by now forgotten prophets.

It's kind of sad, isn't it. In the end Madison won. We have a national government popularly elected with all the power of parliament. In the end, our system of checks and balances seems to only afford the opportunity for our politicians to shirk their personal responsibility for what they vote for.