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: presidio9

Nice to see the rival campaign activists have ruined the thread by the second post. No need to read anymore of their spinning.

Merry Christmas


41 posted on 12/18/2011 5:02:14 PM PST by bray (The Tea Party Occupy's their Mind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

Your analogy, with due respect, was flawed logically and not funny.
So you are oh for 2.


42 posted on 12/18/2011 5:02:44 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright (Moderator of Florida Tea Party Convention Presidential Debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Newt frequently spouts off about big Government solutions to problems, like making inner city kids clean library toilets.


43 posted on 12/18/2011 5:02:53 PM PST by omega4179 (We can't wait!............. for the end of an error.....1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Thomas Jefferson said if the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”


44 posted on 12/18/2011 5:03:51 PM PST by Liberty Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam
I think the biggest threat to the Constitution is the reliance on precedence.

One of the biggest threats came from Justices Sandra Day O'Conner and John Paul Stevens (IIRC) when they advocated reliance on decisions made in international courts.
45 posted on 12/18/2011 5:04:55 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bray
Nice to see the rival campaign activists have ruined the thread by the second post. No need to read anymore of their spinning.

We will have them to thank when Mitt Romney ends up with the nomination by default.

46 posted on 12/18/2011 5:04:55 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

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


47 posted on 12/18/2011 5:06:06 PM PST by engrpat (A village in Kenya is missing their idiot...lets send him back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Newt frequently spouts off about big Government solutions to problems, like making inner city kids clean library toilets.

Actually that's not what he said. That's just how the left spun it.

48 posted on 12/18/2011 5:06:16 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

I’m not so sure that an Executive order is outside the purview of the powers of the presidency, but we have ceded far too much authority to the unelected heads of departments to legislate by regulatory rulings.


49 posted on 12/18/2011 5:06:55 PM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes
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.

For example?

50 posted on 12/18/2011 5:07:52 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing...Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law.

The law is the Constitution.


51 posted on 12/18/2011 5:08:00 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalHope

“I was ready to hold my nose and support him. Not anymore.”

If you are willing to make your decision based on a single CBS article, then you likely wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.

Good luck with the alternative, Romney.


52 posted on 12/18/2011 5:08:21 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~.. Newt/Palin-West-2012."got a lot swirling around in my head.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So the opinions of the President have no impact on his worldview or policies or the nation?

If the President is of the opinion that Communism is the greatest political system ever devised, but does not make that a statement of purpose, that’s okay with you?


53 posted on 12/18/2011 5:09:07 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Alright, here’s what Newt actually said:

“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”

There was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.


54 posted on 12/18/2011 5:09:07 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I love Newt’s insistence that a president CAN ignore some scumbag federal judge, or even a liberal activist Supreme Court which oversteps its bounds - - telling the Commander-in-Chief how to run the armed force or defend the nation from foreign enemies, for example - - but I think he is oversimplifying things with this “two out of three” and thereby confusing easily-confused liberals.


55 posted on 12/18/2011 5:10:33 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

“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.”

FWIW, this exact power is given to Parliament, in the Canadian Constitution. (The “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)


56 posted on 12/18/2011 5:12:26 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Utmost Certainty

Alright, here’s what Newt actually said in the interview:

“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”

The article is misrepresenting Newt’s position, because there was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.


57 posted on 12/18/2011 5:13:01 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

One of the most famous cases of a governor bowing down before the judiciary was just a few years ago when Governor Jeb Bush of Florida got stared down by a freaking county probate judge, and as a result the nation got to watch on their televisions the excruciating month-long starvation murder of Terri Schiavo.


58 posted on 12/18/2011 5:14:47 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

And notice how many Freepers are doing drive by’s and making snarky comments based solely on the headlines? Same thing going on at Lucianne and some others too.

Newt may not be able to survive a media full of BS headline writers and a nation of drive by faux political philosophers (and those are the good guys).


59 posted on 12/18/2011 5:15:13 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright (Moderator of Florida Tea Party Convention Presidential Debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

There you go again, spouting off about how stupid everyone else is, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t agree with you.

And please don’t try that line, again, “ever heard of generalization?”

If all you’ve got is “everybody else is stupid and a shallow thinker or doesn’t have life success or name ID or connections,” that dog won’t hunt.


60 posted on 12/18/2011 5:18:33 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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