Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich: Gov't branches should rule 2 out of 3
CBS News ^ | December 18, 2011 | Lucy Madison

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bachmann; bankruptcy; beast; moral; paul; perry; reevaluategingrich; santorum; starve
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-198 next last
To: MontaniSemperLiberi
The column was muddled confusion between checks among the branches and separation of powers.

A court cannot legitimately tell a President how to conduct a war. Newt disagrees that Scotus can dictate how to treat POWs or “enemy combatants.” He would ignore that ruling, as any President should, for it intruded upon his historic CIC duties.

State courts have ordered cities to raise taxes for schools. Mittens famously rolled over when ordered by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to pass a law that legalized fag marriage. In both of these cases, the Governors should have held a presser to inform the courts they would not be obeyed.

21 posted on 12/18/2011 4:50:10 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Taking Congress back in 2010

Exactly. I see a lot of flaming going on FR for criticizing Newt’s usurpation of power. But, he is absolutely wrong on the remedy he is proposing in response to judicial activism.


22 posted on 12/18/2011 4:50:36 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
It’s pretty obvious the Legislature can go around a ruling, even without the President.

Correct. From here:

"The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls."

23 posted on 12/18/2011 4:50:36 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
Good Lord does ANY REPUBLICAN understand the concept of bluff and guile or is that just a Democrat trait?

After the failed personality cult experiment of vague promises like "Hope & Change," independants are ready to support a candidate with big ideas, who lays his cards out on the table. Even if they don't agree with him.

Starting with Roe, SCOTUS has become the only place we resolve our issues. Hamilton is spinning in his grave.

24 posted on 12/18/2011 4:51:02 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
Way to give Obummer all the ammo he needs to destroy you, Newt. Good Lord does ANY REPUBLICAN understand the concept of bluff and guile or is that just a Democrat trait? Idiots. I give up on the whole lot of them.

That is Newt for ya. He simply can't discipline himself and can't help himself. He absolutely LOVES going out on these limbs with these extreme points that are outside the box. He thinks this will show everyone how smart he is. He is more interested in dazzling people than becoming elected President.

25 posted on 12/18/2011 4:51:48 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare only to have President Obama and Congress ignore the ruling!

Imagine if Congress passed laws against illegal aliens, and all 3 branches ignore the ruling!

Oh, wait ... you don't have to imagine.
26 posted on 12/18/2011 4:53:36 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

Please don’t take at face value what the drivebys write about one of ours. The title was way out of line.


27 posted on 12/18/2011 4:54:59 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Roe V. Wade was maybe the worst case of abuse of power in the history of the country.

They simply made it up out of thin air overturning centuries of common law and real law too.


28 posted on 12/18/2011 4:55:09 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard of a few cases over the years that really rankled me.

One was back in the 80s, when a judge in MO directed to state to spend hundreds of millions of $$ to make the MO school systems more equal. The $$ was spent, but (in the end) it made no difference. That’s because education is more a matter of attitude than of $$.

Another was when some judge directed a state (HI, I believe) to establish civil unions.

I’m sure there are lots more examples. When judges venture into the legistlative realm, there needs to be a mechanism to tell them to go pound sand. [Bill] Clinton did this when a Federal judge “ordered” him to reinstate a discharged [gay] Academy cadet back in the 90s.


29 posted on 12/18/2011 4:55:44 PM PST by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

His point is well taken, but I think a killer for a POTUS campaign.

I’d like to see Gingrich pursue a course espousing the disposal of each, and every unconstitutional department of government, thus the supporting bureaucracies crammed to overflowing with entrenched Leftists that are ruling our country today.

These departments with these vast bureaucracies such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and so many more are run, and staffed by unelected entrenched Leftists whom remain in those positions of power, and influence until they either retire, or die.

They are the ones running the country, and they are the ones that if we get rid of their departments one by one, thus their bureaucracies we reduce the Leftist influence as we eliminate each of those departments that is strangling our Constitutional Republic.


30 posted on 12/18/2011 4:55:44 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

>> This was an OPINION, not a statement of purpose. The Chief Executive has no power to start firing judges. >>

Of course. Stream of consciousness thought to make the listener think and to demonstrate the absurdity of the court’s power now.

Too many around here cannot (or will not) tell the difference between the two. They are shallow thinkers looking for reasons NOT to support candidates, and they micro analyze sound bytes or quotes looking for such. Thus, they’ll always gravitate towards monolithic repetitive clones instead of free thinkers. They’ll never “get” Newt, but they’ll isolate a few quotes and swear that they do.

They also act like every idea or opinon (like Cain’s 999) will suddenly be thrust upon us if we dare nominate that person. Really shallow and out of context analysis by sooooo many.


31 posted on 12/18/2011 4:56:13 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright (Moderator of Florida Tea Party Convention Presidential Debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I think the biggest threat to the Constitution is the reliance on precedence. When the USSC rules on a case, it is ruling on the Constitutionality of that specific circumstance, and not necessarily on the idea behind it. But, legislators and justices will take the ruling and hold it as law for the idea as a whole.

So while the Court didnt “legalize” or “de-legalize” an activity directly (just a specific occurrence), they did in effect “legalize” or “de-legalize” the activity, because no one will touch it. And that is how they create laws - everyone is afraid of upsetting precedence.


32 posted on 12/18/2011 4:56:38 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Well, if you want a candidate whose every utterance has first been poll tested and focus grouped, then Romney is your man.


33 posted on 12/18/2011 4:57:08 PM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Then fix the judicial problem Mr.Gingrich. Thinking path of least resistance.


34 posted on 12/18/2011 4:57:31 PM PST by blackdog (And justice for all.....(Offer not valid in all locations, and prices vary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam
“we dont need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have.”

I would say there is A LOT of work to get rid of laws we simply don't need; hate crimes, DUI laws; anything "racial"..

(Before you flame me about DUI laws, I can think of a plethora of laws that already exist to cover ANYONE driving under the influence. DUI laws are state and local money makers, nothing more).

35 posted on 12/18/2011 4:58:07 PM PST by Michael Barnes (Obamaa+ Downgrade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

Imagine if Obama said this. An Obama/Pelosi Government running roughshod over the courts and the People.


36 posted on 12/18/2011 4:58:30 PM PST by omega4179 (We can't wait!............. for the end of an error.....1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi
Conceptually there is nothing wrong with his argument. The Constitution created three branches each with it's assigned area of authority, but once the Supreme Court arrogated the power of "judicial review" to itself, it upset the balance that the Founding Fathers carefully crafted.

Under "judicial review" the Supreme Court unilaterally decided that it could overrule the will of the people as made manifest by a majority of a democratically Congress and a democratically elected President--this quite simply is not in the Constitution and goes against the idea, as stated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, that of the three, the supreme Court was expected to be the weakest of the three branches.

Now I can't say that I can think of any example where the President and the SCOTUS have or could get together to overrule Congress' decisions, but certainly the Executive and the Legislative should hold the authority (and do according to the Consitution) to restrain the Judicial.

If one has three "co-equal" branches, then theoretically, logically, any two could overrule the wishes of the third.
37 posted on 12/18/2011 4:59:11 PM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio
Next time an attorney loses a case in the courts, does he get a "two outa three ain't bad" appeal?

AKA, The Meatloaf Doctrine.

38 posted on 12/18/2011 4:59:31 PM PST by blackdog (And justice for all.....(Offer not valid in all locations, and prices vary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I haven’t got all the way through the video yet, but did Newt even literally say “Government branches should rule 2 out of 3”—or did the media just misleadingly paraphrase his position that way?

If so, why are Freepers falling all over themselves to drink media kool-aid on this? Heh.


39 posted on 12/18/2011 4:59:31 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.


40 posted on 12/18/2011 4:59:53 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson