Skip to comments.Subpoena Judges? Yes, Indeed (Why Newt has a good point)
Posted on 12/27/2011 6:58:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Speaker Gingrich's campaign position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," has serious flaws such as proposing that Congress and the Executive could limit the jurisdiction of the courts to hear cases challenging unconstitutional laws that are enacted by those two branches.
One of the controversial positions in the paper that has drawn criticism is that Congress may subpoena judges to testify about judicial opinions they've written.
Subpoenaing judges actually may be one of the better ideas in the paper, and could be implemented independent of the other proposals. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution barring Congress from subpoenaing judges now.
The Speech and Debate Clause in Article I, on the other hand, expressly protects members of Congress who "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
There must be a reason why the Founders did not see fit to create a similar provision for judges.
Some claim that the "independence of the judiciary" would be violated if Congress could subpoena judges. That's understandable, given how Congress makes a mess of nearly everything it touches.
That is, however, a bit of an exaggerated view of the constitutional separation of powers. The three co-equal, independent branches are supposed to provide checks and balances on each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well, then, libs can't complain, because that's there pretext for everything they propose.
The branches are independent, but they are not even vaguely co-equal.
Whenever it chooses to exercise it, Congress has absolute power over the other two branches.
The executive power over Congress is limited to a totally ineffective (against a unified Congress) veto.
The judiciary has zero power over Congress.
Meanwhile, Congress can impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches whenever it feels like it.
I’ve been saying for years that the way to stop these judges is to shrink their jurisdictions down to the size of postage stamps. The Ninth Circus being my primary point of example....Newt is just a damned plagiarist.
Only if you think Congress should be able to subpoena the President as well.
“In other words, there is no pure and complete “judicial independence” in the Constitution.”
Correct. No more than there is pure and complete Legislative or Executive independence.
There is a lot more to Newt's stand on the Judiciary than the subpoena baloney that gets all of the attention. His underlying message is that as President he would support Congressional efforts to turn the heat up on wild Marxist judges and subject them to the Constitutional checks our Framers gave Congress.
Read more here. http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
That doesn't sound like a flaw, but one of the most necessary tools in limiting the courts. The courts should have no jurisdiction in matters of foreign policy, national defense and military matters.
And also they should have no ability to extend 'rights' to illegal aliens as they have done so often in the past. Courts have given illegals the 'right' to public education and have also blocked state attempts to deny welfare and other government paid benefits.
Subpoena Judges? Good idea and then let’s purge the government of communists (wishful thinking).
The constitution created 3 branches of government, but the courts are not one of the branches. The three branches are: executive, the House (which was to represent the interest of the people), and the Senate (which was to represent the interest of the states). This was the Great Compromise; the solution to one of the biggest problems drafting a constitution: how to balance the interests of the large vs. small states.
The constitution is pretty clear that the courts are controlled by congress. The courts are given power “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”