Posted on 12/20/2011 10:04:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for the link - I’ll be sure to read it.
As I said before I’m sympathetic to his position - I just want to be sure that the solution would not allow a president to have arbitrary power.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...
It seems clear that this means that their offices are forfeit if they engage in bad behavior, which must certainly include usurping the power and authority of the legislature.
They should change their name to BelowTheBeltway.com. lol
How about court rulings that protect endangered species over property owners? I doubt that is in our constitution. The 9th circuit court has some extreme rulings you may research that are mind boggling.
“It seems clear that this means that their offices are forfeit if they engage in bad behavior, which must certainly include usurping the power and authority of the legislature.”
The remedy for that is impeachment - that is available today.
The only thing wrong with your verbose rant is that Newt never said he, or any president, would or should do that.
You’re welcome and I understand your concerns.
How about court rulings that protect endangered species over property owners? I doubt that is in our constitution. The 9th circuit court has some extreme rulings you may research that are mind boggling.
Also, the 9th court ruling on illegals vs AZ..Three months later, Arizona was dealt another blow when the 9th U.S. Circuit in San Francisco upheld the federal district court’s ruling. Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/immigration-112290-court-law.html#ixzz1h9sdXpxA
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
This is what Newt said....
“Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in “extraordinary” situations.””
Maybe you can enlighten me on how the two are the same.&rdquo.
.
First of all, 2 points: The constitution has more provisions than you cited, and Newt's discussion included more than you noted above.
Newt pointed out that as Commander In Chief during war the Writ of Habeas Corpus has in the past been suspended, and granting Miranda rights to prisoners captured during the War on Terror is an infringement of the President's authority.
Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is found in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.
If,during a time of war, or national emergency, A president chooses to issue an executive order to ignore a ruling that infringes on his authority, it would then be up to the Congress to check the president, if he was incorrect in his actions.
As you noted, congress can make regulations relating to exceptions to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction, and the president may sign those into law thereby shielding certain areas from Supremes appellate jurisdiction. Since the Congress also has jurisdiction over inferior courts, they should be able to keep them in line also.
The totality of Newt's position is that there are 3 branches of government and each has their own authority and power to be checked as provided in the Constitution. We are not supposed to be under an oligarchy and there are constitutional remedies.
Article III, section 2 places jurisdiction for all inferior courts (not Supremes)under Congressional authority. Congress may impeach judges, they may conduct fact-finding hearings for which they can subpoena judges to testify.
Should the judges ignore the subpoena, they are in contempt of Congress and US Marshals can insure they comply with the subpoena.
Further more, there is a very comprehensive white paper on the subject at Newt.org if you would like to really understand Newt's position regarding the courts.
In short, Newt makes the case that the President in conjunction with Congress may constitutionally reign in an out of control judiciary
The remedy for that is impeachment - that is available today.”
There is also another remedy available today, the Congress may simply abolish a district, send the Judges packing and reassign jurisdiction to another court.
Likewise, Congress might choose to split up a district into more than one thereby allowing additional judges to be appointed and dilute the influence of the usurpers.
seem so...
“Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions”
Well, I seem to recall that regarding some war issues, the congress and the president removed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and yet the Court simply ignored the Congress and the President and ruled anyway. I didn’t hear anybody crying out then!
Marriage should be left to the states. The courts started down a dangerous path of stripping all religion out of the public square in the 1960's, a complete reversal from 150 years of historical precedent.
Nicely said!
Well, Thank you. Thank you very much.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree 100% with you and Newt that the courts have too much power and that all the rulings you mention have been abominable.
What I’m arguing is that giving that power to a president could be even worse. Do you really want Obama to have such arbitrary powers?
I agree we need to find a way to curb the power of the courts, but we need to do it in such a way that the power is returned to the people. How to best do that is the challenge. Simply giving the president arbitrary power to determine what is an “extraordinary” situation is frightening.
Even then we have to be careful - we are not a pure democracy, but a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. That means that the constitution is above the will of a simple majority, otherwise the bill of rights would have been shredded long ago. It takes massive supermajorities by various bodies to amend the constitution, and rightfully so.
Our country fast becomming a socialist nation is pretty much extraordinary at every level....sometimes you have to go ahead with something that's right even if it might break someones rules....if you're wrong then apologise after. I am hoping Newt will do what he has to to stop where're we're headed and I have no doubt he'd lay it on the line to get us out of this mess.
But you’re assuming that it’s president Newt who declares a situation “extraordinary” and ignores a supreme court ruling that is not to our (conservative’s) liking. But would you give the same power to a president Obama to declare a situation “extraordinary” and ignore a supreme court decision that we like? Let’s say the supreme court rules that obamacare is unconstitutional and Obama declares an “extraordinary” situation by making up some story about medical costs bankrupting the country, and he then decides to ignore the Supremes, would you go along with that?
I wouldn’t consider your questions applicable since the constitution is all but being trashed now, and long before the supreme court would have anything in their hands in which to rule on. Obama makes his own rules which never are considered according to our constitution...only in how he can manuver around it if it becomes necessary.
The country is moving fast into a socialist country and therefore our constitution will be nothing more than a document if things continue...and currently being pushed as absolete.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that since Obama is trashing the constitution anyway, you would be fine if he were to ignore a supreme court ruling declaring obamacare unconstitutional. Or are you saying, he may not explicitely and formally ignore it but will do so surreptitiously, so we’re pretty much at a dictatorship regardless of what happens.
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.