"I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."
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
I think of it as paper- scissors -rock.
Congress is the rock, SCOTUS is the paper & the President is the scissors.
Two branches lining up on the same side should always win.
“And notice how many Freepers are doing drive by’s and making snarky comments based solely on the headlines”
Yes I have notice it. 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.
Do you?
As the only Speaker to impeach a sitting president in more than 100 years, you have to ask if he believes in checks and balances?
Two out of three is often the "check" in the system.
President nominates to the high court, the Senate, in theory makes sure they're well qualified appointments. That's two out of three, with the House excluded. But congress alone can also impeach and remove an executive or a judge/justice and yet that's "two out of three" in the sense both the House and Senate must agree.
Since congress can exclude items from judicial review, a congress and a president can limit what legislation judges can review. Two out of three.
Neither a president nor the judiciary are involved in amending the constitution although a "check" does come via state ratification.
You act as if his "two out of three" is somehow shocking and unAmerican. Instead it's the system already in place, just described in a way perhaps you haven't considered.
At the debate the other night, Newt cited three examples: Jefferson, Jackson and FDR. Thomas Jefferson eliminated dozens of judgeships. Andrew Jackson defied John Marshall and drove the Cherokee out of Georgia, the so-called “Trail of Tears”. Say what you want about those. 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. But what really disturbed me is his mention of FDR. Because we know what he did when the SCOTUS blocked his un-Constitutional Socialist “New Deal” excesses: he tried to “pack” the Court. And when the public revolted against that (revolting) attempt, he threatened to pass retirement age limits. After that more doable threat, the justices who opposed him either backed down, or retired. FDR acted as a Socialist dictator, before WWII falsely made him a savior. For Gingrich to so admire him AND his fascist court-packing effort, is very disturbing to me.
I had entirely forgotten that act of judicial barbarism.
What would the judge have done if Jeb refused? Throw the governor in jail for contempt for not killing Terry? Bah!
This would have meant that Obama, Pelosi and Reid could have ruled dictatorially during 2009 and 2010.
ML/NJ
Brilliantly stated! And the courts shall make no laws!
When Gingrich was House Speaker, he actually had the power to do something about the federal courts. Of course, he did nothing.
"I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."
Not only the power, but the duty.
Otherwise their oaths of office, which are required by Article 6, Section 3, make no sense whatsoever.
The idea that you could ever carry out your oath to support the Constitution without interpreting it, and then acting upon that interpretation, is one of the silliest notions ever perpetrated.
-- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833"On the other hand, the duty imposed upon him [the president] to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people."
Justice John Marshall said the exact same thing in Marbury v. Madison, about the obligations of all the departments of government.
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
If Marshall had tried to foist what today they call "judicial review," ie a false claim to the veto power, or the power to amend constitutions, or to do anything except rule upon individual cases that came before them according to the Constitution, the founding generation would have run him and his colleagues out of town on a rail.
Yeah, but it was Newt's opinion -- candidate for president of the United States. He's running for the office, not writing some obscure college opinion piece. This is just what most of us have been waiting for from him.
Verbal diarrhea.
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.
Yeah, but it was Newt's opinion -- candidate for president of the United States. He's running for the office, not writing some obscure college opinion piece. This is just what most of us have been waiting for from him.
Verbal diarrhea.
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.
I think he was pointing it out as an example as to when a court ruling (or position) can not stand if the executive and legislative are opposed. So yes the founders did establish a system where a bad choice could be made if 2 of the three pillars of the government were for the bad choice. Unfortunately the system allows the people to be free to choose stupidly.
Now that is ridiculous.
This guy is crazy.
The branches of government are supposed to operate within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, its not 2 out of 3!
Actually, Gingrich was not agreeing with Jackson, but merely citing his action as precedent in response to the moderator’s question. He also cited Lincoln and Dred Scott.
Newt did not propose two out of three. When will you people learn to distrust CBS News. He simply outlined the way it already is. If the Congress impeaches a judge, and the President agrees the judeg is likely to lose. If an Executive oversteps his bounds and the Congress challenges him and has the agreement of the courts, the executive is likely to lose. No-one proposed any changes to any system. Cripes this is getting tiresome.
Crazy is generous. The man is a walking punchline.
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.