Yes, there is something rotten in our judicial system. But two out of three is definitely not in the Constitution, and definitely NOT the answer.
Newt is way out of line with this. I was ready to hold my nose and support him. Not anymore.
This was an OPINION, not a statement of purpose. The Chief Executive has no power to start firing judges.
Please don’t take at face value what the drivebys write about one of ours. The title was way out of line.
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.
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.
“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.
He made a good point at the debate and then didn’t remember to shut his mouth after that....then comes out with a silly 2 out of 3 idea.....If the courts are out of bounds, remove them. Period....Impeach is a word that goes for the judges also...
Alexander Hamilton expected the legislative branch would define the reach of the judicial branch. He argued in Federalist 80 that when the judiciary had to be modified, “the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.”On page 7 Newt continues with more from the Federalist Papers:
Hamilton was also confident the judicial branch could never seriously encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch. Hamilton said it was because the judicial branch had a “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.” In Federalist 78, he called the judiciary “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” and the one that could “never attack with success either of the other two”.
Hamilton further noted in Federalist 81, “There can never be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations.” (Page 6)
Madison famously lays out the theory of separation of powers in Federalist 51:This is a very well thought out paper which needs to be read by all. I am still in the process of reading it. It is quite long.To what expedient then shall we finally resort for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.Madison argues in Federalist 48 that there must be some type of “practical security for each [branch], against the invasion of the others”:...that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others."
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Actually it is in t he Constitution; it's called impeachment and it hasn't been used nearly as often as it should be.
Not that I disagree with newt’s plan of subordinating the judicial branch. But this will lead to a political war between the republican and democrat factions over control of the same courts just as Ron Paul suggested it will.
This I believe is on net a very good thing over the long run. I very much encourage & support such a political war because it’s inevitable result will be to devalue and largely defang the Federal Court system. As the Federal courts must convict people of federal crimes the slowing down(defanging) of the same courts will nearly have a similar effect on the rest of the Federal government domestically where that court applies. (Note the military & foreign policy does not need Federal court approval to have effect. Foreign countries are not usually “innocent until proven guilty”).
________________________________________
Just in case that was not clear enough the Logic behind this is quite simple:
1: There is no way either party(republican or democrat) can replace all the Federal judges now in existence in the time they hold office. Unlike in Thomas Jefferson’s or even Lincoln’s time there are simply too many of em, and our elected officials in the Federal Government structurally are still limited to acting only so many objects with in their period of power.
(It should be noted those objects which they address can either be foreign in nature like trade and border policy or domestic in nature such as was formerly the responsibility of our individual, local, and State domains. (Like health, education, roads, and criminal justice, ect). As the Feds attempt to address more of the domestic they inherently sacrifice in the foreign.)
It should also be noted that our Federal Government is already beyond its maximum capacity. Even with the expanded federal benches, such as exist today, trials still take forever and Congress & the president still don’t have enough time to properly find & appoint enough Federal judges.
So there must either be fewer of them judges (Thus slower enforcement of federal edicts) or judicial peace & longevity (as exist to some limited extent now).
2: A smaller federal judiciary will be able to take on fewer cases thereby leaving a larger share of the judicial load to the States from which there will be no timely appeal.
In short our States will have their way until one of the few federal judges can get around to imposing their will. With such a smaller Federal judiciary as would be required by one appointed every 8 years, and a large federation & population. That weight could be justy long enough for the state sentence to be served thus rendering the Federal edict mute.
So by all means bring on & encourage this war, and the days where the Federal Government is largely replaced. The leftist cannot practically wage it successfully within the confines of our system structurally. Their Big Centralized government socialism will hit the wall of their own micromanaging capabilities.
Don't be so arrogant.
Who appoints judges? A president and congress (senate). Two out of three.
Who makes up the lower federal courts under Art 1 & Art 3? The congress and the president. Two out of three.
Both halves of congress can act unilaterally on impeachment of judges.
You may not have thought of it that way because you've been brainwashed by the Warren Court's shift toward oligarchy.