Posted on 12/18/2011 4:23:33 PM PST by presidio9
“This is a concept shockingly many conservatives don’t understand.”
Truth.
Newt outlined in the white papers the procedures used. Judges cannot write laws and judges cannot rule outside the constitution. They do and we all know many should be impeached. Our founders never intended to give the federal judges a dictatorship.
It would not be Newt or the president alone that would make the decision to impeach. There is a procedure that has to be followed.
“This is a much-needed and very belated start to a serious and substantive discussion aimed at solving the problem.”
I agree with that. The two out of three comment by Newt was, in a word, dumb. Once again we have Newt starting with a reasonable point but pushing it and pushing it until he gets a reaction from his audience.
I think it’s good to refer to post 164. There are two concepts that I’d like to see discussed WRT supreme court appointees. First is Negation. The courts are to negate laws rather than make laws. Somehow that issue got caught up in Judicial Deference. We need to separate them again. Second is non-Delgability but that’s a discussion for another day.
“It’s a dodge.” Not really but if it is it’s a darn good one.
Every President since Jefferson thinks that last one didn’t do it quite right. The Executive Branch through the Legislative Branch, if they wanted, could appoint judges to overturn M v. M. They haven’t because the vast majority accept that the USSC is the final arbiter of constitutionality. This is one of many reasons why the Constitutional Convention decided the court should be appointed and not elected. They weren’t appointed so they could rule without accountability. They were appointed so that they would be weak and deferential to the other two branches.
Vs.
“Almost all the worlds’ constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which We the People tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the People are free.” — Ronald Reagan
Because if they were elected, they would not be deferential to the other two branches.
Madison went into the constitutional convention with the Virginia plan. The lower house would be elected popularly and the executive would be appointed. It was felt that this did not guaranty enough of a check on the legislative branch and hence the electoral college was created. The Framers though did not want the courts to be very independent so they decided that they would be appointed. They knew that since the executive was selecting these people and the Senate was confirming them that the people selected would be naturally deferential to the other two branches.
Newt is a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.
Well I wish you luck in trying to persuade people that Newt is not really smart. That is not really up for debate. Newt’s weaknesses are in other areas
So judges are gods and have no real checks after they’re appointed?
Given the bribes, finagling, and hoops the Admistration had to use to backdoor Obamacare, do you really think the Administration would have been able to get the support to overrule the SC on this one? Gingrich is talking about completely outrageous situtations, that defy common sense, not controversial 50/50 issues.
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.
Yes they can be impeached if the President and Congress can agree, and on the grounds that the Court has tried to make a law or to add to the constitution. Which it did in Roe v. Wade. If the House had rejected its reasoning and agreed with Byron White that it was a “raw exercise of judicial authority,” —a reach—and if two thirds of the Senate agree with them, then the judges could be removed from office. Of course, the country would have been support this action, by something close to a consensus. The problem was that the consensus of the elite class supported the Court, and the House and Senate were part of that elite. Never mind what the ordinary voters thought. Even those members of the elite who condemned the court’s decision have long been conditioned to accept ruling of the Court and to think of critics of the Court has loonies.
““the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” – Barack Obama
Vs.
“Almost all the worlds’ constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which We the People tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the People are free.” — Ronald Reagan”
It is indeed the very essence of American Constitutions to tell the Goverment to which they apply what they can and (by exclusion on top of clarifying prohibitions) can’t do.
In that last line regarding the few clarifying prohibitions I am forced to show sympathies for the Federalist in that theses clarifications HAVE been used by evil & dangerously ignorant forces to argue the goverment is otherwise all powerful.
Whether theses broad usurpation would have in time taken place with or without the “bill of rights” I personalty trusting in the greed of human nature and the system of power left have little doubt.
As Thomas Jefferson Observted from history it is in the basic nature of Governments, like the politicians that lead them, to lust for power and accordingly act in ways as to grow that power.
The Federal Constitution in itself is and always will be a dead letter so long as there is not a perpetually interested party both willing and able to enforce its terms.
When the States were crushed & enslaved to the unconditional authority of the central union in 1865, the last option for enforcement. The consent of the governed, was robed from the same Governed. Both north & south alike, it no longer mattered what rights you had, or what consent you gave as the others would be rallied to crush your dreams & rights at the becking call of Washington D.C.
And slowly with little to no means and waning interest on the party in power to enforce it, the Federal Constitution was strangled to death.
Now we here 100+ years later standing in the ruble of that old once free republic watch & talk as that Empire (created by the usurper sword of Lincoln and his northern idiot follower) begins to crumble discuss what to do about it.
Some of us still stand with the failed imperial ideas of that tyrant Lincoln, while also trying to cling on the contradictory and ultimately incompatible republican virtues of free men. Unable to recognize that contraction, and subsequently unable to understand its apparent incompatibility, they fight a losing war against growing goverment and diminishing liberty.
Without saying what has already been said, I need only point out that the rest of us Conservatives who have recognized Lincoln as the tyrant he is have a choice to make:
We can recognize that by siding with you as most of us have in the past in the foolish fight we can only prolong the inevitable.
On the other hand by siding against and for liberty, we can force your hand. You will either stand with us for real liberty, or you will find the situation becoming increasingly intolerable until you find you have no other choice.
At that perhaps tragically bloody hour you too may understand the necessity of the right to revolution(secession) in the maintaining the consent of the governed. Unfortunate at that last hour it may be too late to negotiate mutually beneficial terms much less avoid a bloody war costing the lives of millions. Those in power may be too drunk with same power(as Lincoln was) to accept anything but submission to them.
This is of course correct. Although it should have been impossible for the rest of the Federal government to act with the courts objections against an individual.
This does not make the court more powerful for they cannot mandate anything, nor “say what the law is” but merely exercise their oath to uphold the Federal Constitution & refuse to act unlawfully.
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.