"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
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.
So the opinions of the President have no impact on his worldview or policies or the nation?
If the President is of the opinion that Communism is the greatest political system ever devised, but does not make that a statement of purpose, that’s okay with you?
Alright, here’s what Newt actually said:
“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”
There was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.
I love Newt’s insistence that a president CAN ignore some scumbag federal judge, or even a liberal activist Supreme Court which oversteps its bounds - - telling the Commander-in-Chief how to run the armed force or defend the nation from foreign enemies, for example - - but I think he is oversimplifying things with this “two out of three” and thereby confusing easily-confused liberals.
“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.”
FWIW, this exact power is given to Parliament, in the Canadian Constitution. (The “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)
Alright, here’s what Newt actually said in the interview:
“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”
The article is misrepresenting Newt’s position, because there was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.
One of the most famous cases of a governor bowing down before the judiciary was just a few years ago when Governor Jeb Bush of Florida got stared down by a freaking county probate judge, and as a result the nation got to watch on their televisions the excruciating month-long starvation murder of Terri Schiavo.
And notice how many Freepers are doing drive by’s and making snarky comments based solely on the headlines? Same thing going on at Lucianne and some others too.
Newt may not be able to survive a media full of BS headline writers and a nation of drive by faux political philosophers (and those are the good guys).
There you go again, spouting off about how stupid everyone else is, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t agree with you.
And please don’t try that line, again, “ever heard of generalization?”
If all you’ve got is “everybody else is stupid and a shallow thinker or doesn’t have life success or name ID or connections,” that dog won’t hunt.
Let’s not forget our U.S. history, when President Andrew Jackson famously said, “Justice John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”
That is not controversial in the least.
I’m about ready to support Paul at this point geez.
Yes, it does.
Please cite article and section that confers on the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, to declare laws unConstitutional, or to impose on the Congress or the Executive its own opinion on the above subjects.
|
What you call "the box" is killing us.
It is not extreme in the least to say that all three branches have a co-equal power, within their proper sphere, to interpret the Constitution.
We need to go farther than that. Congress is also morally bankrupt.
The Supreme Court is supposed to negate laws just as a president may veto laws. The Supreme Court is not supposed to create laws.
In the absence of law there is liberty.
Thanks presidio9.
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...
Lifetime appointments are a big part the problem.
The six year term for Senators is also too long.
It is refreshing to have somebody provoke the idea.
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."
Finally someone with the details on just how destructive the court/lawyer system has proven to the Republic.
Article III Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Notice that nowhere is a Judge appointed for 'life', but for 'good Behavior'. I'm sure most of us can point to cases and opinions that do not equate to judicial "good Behavior"!
Newt's looking better all the time.
Off the top of my head, people who disagree with you:
John Jay, John Marshall, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln...
Wasn't it Newt who said stupid people are destroying our country. It truly is amazing how little people understand, yet they don't hesitate to comment as if they are experts. Really sad, especially when you consider the horrible mess our country is in. Long past the time whereby people should be putting forth the effort necessary to be informed voters.
And just how are they supposed to do the left's bidding that way?
He is absolutely right, and a close understanding of our founding period bears it out. Congress is our first branch of government and was intended by our founders to take the lead in governing. The presidency/executive was never intended to be the all encompassing mess it is now, and certainly was never intended to make laws. The executive does make laws through regulations, because Congress first allowed the executive and judicial branches to grow beyond all bounds, and second ceded much of its constitutional responsibilities to the executive, and some to the judicial.
As for the judicial branch, the concept of judicial review is not found in the constitution but, like all governmental bodies, the judicial began grabbing power very early in our history, during the Jefferson administration.
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.
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.