Gingrich Blasts ‘Increasingly Arrogant Judiciary,’ Would Consider Sending Capitol Police to Arrest Activist Judges
- Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:48pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
AP
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich again blasted the judicial branch of the U.S. government Sunday and said he would be willing to send Capitol Hill police or U.S. Marshals to arrest judges and haul them before a congressional hearing.
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,“ Gingrich said there is a ”fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts.” He defended his previously stated position that the president and Congress should have the authority to ignore court rulings they disagree with, and that in the case of extremely controversial decisions, lawmakers should have the power to subpoena activist judges and have them defend their rulings.
When host Bob Schieffer questioned how such a subpoena could be enforced, such as whether he would send a Capitol Hill police officer to forcibly bring the judge in, Gingrich said yes.
“If you had to,” he said. “Or you would instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal.”
Citing in particular U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery, who ruled in June that a Texas high school could not have any religious language in its graduation ceremony, Gingrich said: “I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word ‘benediction’ and ‘invocation’?”
“You have an increasingly arrogant judiciary,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.“ ”The question is, is there anything we the American people can do? The standard answer has been eventually we’ll appoint good judges. I think that’s inadequate. The Constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, the executive branch and the legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary.
“I got in this originally for two things,” he said. “The steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president’s commander-in-chief powers, which is enormously dangerous.”
Watch the interview clip below, via CBS:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 691 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 490 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 375 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 343 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 314 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 327 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 232 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 314 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (241)
tweet
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:44pmAmerica is becoming more like the European Socialist Countries, this is being done largely through the courts. If we want to keep our country distinct and not fall into the European Socialist Secular model, which obviously does not work, we need to look to balance the branches, especially, the radical courts that go against the majority of Americans and the underpinning of our moral values.
Report Post »Clara88
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:34pmWow…Ron Paul’s tea party money bomb is about to hit $4 million
http://www.dailypaul.com/192852/friday-ron-paul-tea-party-moneybomb-december-16-2011
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:48pmYeah, and it is not big donations from big corporations. It is the people giving to Paul. He is still the front runner, do not doubt it. The establishment is not going to sway the people anymore. The Bush and Clinton reign is over. The establishment reign is over. We will be able to get this country turned around and prosperous again. Don’t let the many Progressives on this site sway you with anything they say, because that is what they do best, lie. Keep up the good fight and the Tea will win this election, just like we did in 2010. All real Tea in Washington should be the goal.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 9:03pmNone of these clowns: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or RuPaul will be the nominee.
The actual GOP nominee hasn’t even entered the race yet. I guarantee to you that! Screw this ridiculous primary system – go for a brokered convention!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:26amGoodstuff, pipe dreams, my man. Who is it you think will miraculously enter the race for the GOP? Sarah Palin? We know it is not “The Donald” don’t we? He said if he ran he would do it as an Independent. “The Donald” is part of the problem. Cronicapitalists along with big government has been the problem all along, Progressives. Get real, my man.
Report Post »conservativewoman
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:39pmYou go, Newt! Here is California we have had to deal with the 9th circuit court judges for too long. Everytime we the people vote on something, a judge tries to overturn it. It got so bad that Californians were saying it was useless to even vote!
Report Post »I read a lot of criticism about Californians in this forum and how we vote, but you do not realize all the activist judges we have to contend with.
marion
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 6:52pmI have to absolutely agree with you. Not only can we not get the progressives and liberals out of this country because they are so rooted into the system, twice we voted on Man and Woman only marriage, and twice it was overturned (still in court I believe, but could be wrong), a super speed bullet train at one price, now it is doubled in price and only 2/3rds the distance and still hasn’t broken ground, and for some reason we can’t get Boxer, Pelosi, and several other idiots from supposedly representing us. Just like the housing market that needed to be reset, but instead was bailed out, the courts system needs to be purged, rule of law, not rule as I say. If it isn’t in the Constitution, it doesn’t need to be in the decision, that’s why it was written.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:15pmWhy don’t we just elect another establishment candidate. We have only had two families in the power positions in Washington for the last trhee decades, Bush and Clintons, 1980-Present as VP, POTUS and Seretary of State. That should nopt bother anyone. Don’t even worry your little heads about it. They really know what is best for the whole world. They have been doing such a good job over the last three decades that we don’t need a power change in Washington. We the People should just shut up and do as they say or else. This is all going to end up badly guy’s. I just cannot believe that we as a majority want to continue on this path. Maybe nuclear war will be a good thing for humanity in the long run.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:37pmThis is a nice music video for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bitxwy6okn4
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:16pmevery picture I see of Gingrich I can clearly see evil… wake up America this is the white version of Obama.. He is a liberal wearing the costume of a Republican.. this sort of statement is every bit sounding like a dictator.. I agree we must do something about those who he is talking about.. but we must do it right and let Congress and the Senate take care of it…God help us if this man becomes president!
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:31pmEvil typically doesn’t look evil. On the contrary, satan was “light” and he is the deceiver.worry about someone who looks too good to be true. Newt just looks tired from all the worry about the state of this country.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:35pmThe only promise Newt kept when he became Speaker was to end ice deliveries and free flowers. When he left both were started again. He did not eliminate the Department of Energy, Department of Education or the Department of EPA. Our nation is now in shambles and destroyed thanks to him and other RiNOs and the only thing now is division and creation of a new homeland for white Americans.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:37pmWe must not, we dare not exchange one criminally insane Kenyan born president for a American born insane president. Who could Obama been allowed to take the oath of office? With sentiments spoken by Newt, how can he be allowed to take the oath?
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:40pmThis man is evil to his bones. I dont care anymore who we have for president as long as its not the draft dodger big goverment, NEWT.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:45pmWhat is insane about getting these judges that ignore the Constitution before Congress. They have put case law before our Constitution
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:46pmDo you prefer the currnet crop of ‘statists’ ? Newt is the ONLY one making any sense of this mess. Do you want BHO or BHO ‘Lite” (Romney)?
Report Post »conservativewoman
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:47pm@ABBYGIRL1994
Report Post »God did help us. That is why Newt finally ran for President.
American Resistance
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:53pm@ Abbygirl…. exactly right and @ spreadthefaith….what, it isn‘t obvious that Newt is pretending to be something he’s not. Using the Satan came as a being of light, yes and Newt is pretending to be a conservative. So Abbygirls comments are still correct, that is ,of course, something you can’t see if you know nothing of Newts voting record and corruption.
Report Post »bhohater
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:53pmBeing able to tell whether a man is good or evil just by looking at his picture is quite a gift ABBYGIRL. Do you read palms too?
Report Post »maryslittlelamb
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 9:27pm@Abbygirl But Congress and the Senate have NOT “taken care of it”. No one in office today has the guts to simply tell the truth, let alone do anything good for America. Newt does. Newt will get it done for us just like he got so many good things done for us in the 90s.
Report Post »http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/Ruddy-Gingrich-genuineconservative-/2011/12/11/id/420581
http://townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/2011/12/14/newts_past_and_future_leadership/page/full/
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:04amMaryslittlelamb, Yeah all the while doing things that got him kicked out that he had to lie to Congress about and get fined $300,000.00 for. Get real.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:04pmWhat happens when you have a president like Obama and a Congress led by Pelosi and Reid and they decide to attack all conservative judges?
Newt is playing politics with the constitution and I don’t like it.
He is throwing red meat at the conservative base and they are biting. I also find his rhetoric very telling in the fact that he has no problem with rewriting the constitution to suit his objectives and his world view.
This is a very dangerous man to be in the position of President of the U.S..
Report Post »Fella
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:18pmHe doesn’t just want the constitution to die, he’d like to deliver the death blow.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:26pmFella
From what I read about this guy I completely agree with you. The GOP voters had better start doing their homework on this turkey.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:26pmNothing that the Courts are doing that Newt is attacking is IN the Constitution. So your complaints about him attacking the Constitution or “rewriting” it are bogus,
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:27pmRead his books.He’s not going to re-write the constitution.Reagan didn’t have to either and he accomplished some good things. Unfortunately, the constitution was re-interpreted beginning in the 20th century and we now need someone knowledgeable to undo their tampering. As christians we can’t even pray in public schools or have the ten commandments up because of “the constitution.“ Women have the right to kill their own child because of ”the constitution“dads have no say in protecting that un born child because of ”the constitution” and it’s our courts that have defining these constitutional rights. This is a serious election and requires americans to put God,the most vulnerable first and our own self-interest last. Then the decision will be clear as to who to vote for. God will not forsake us , we will not go the way of the world-we will lead the world.
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:39pmThe republican establishment and others are trying to scare voters away from Newt like they did with Reagan.
Report Post »“All free people stand on Reagan’s shoulders. His principled policies proved that free markets create wealth, that the rule of law sustains freedom, and that all people everywhere deserve the right to dream, to pursue their dreams, and to govern themselves.” Newt Gingrich
quickstudy
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:52pmAgreed
Report Post »coach1228
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 10:34pmYou have rocks in your head. Dangerous man!!! WTF are you talking about??
Report Post »Do you see what’s in the white house now?
No….if the 3rd Pilliar of our Country is dictating law….Liberal law…then someone needs to speak.
TFG that Newt is on this….for about 10 years.
This man knows WTF is wrong with this country. Yeah…he does have BOLD ideas and solutions……we need them to get out of the Marxist strangle hold on us now.
GO FREAKIN NEWT!!!!
ozchambers
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:25pmI agree with you SLR, just becuz we are pissed at the abuses of the judiciary does NOT mean we want to throw out the seperation of powers. We want to RESTORE the Constitution. He sounds like he wants to toss the Constitution out in the name of conservative values. Doesnt he realize The Constitution IS the embodiment of true conservative values??? This truly exposes his power thirsty tendencies and this statement along with his much professed love of other Constitutional ignorers such as FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson has solidified my intent to see another candidate represent the Republican Party in 2012. Gingrich is done, watch the polls plummet.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:02pmThat might be over the top. Congress is in charge of keeping the judiciary in check. They can abolish federal courts, and they can impeach judges. Supreme Court judges are not actually appointed for life, but as long as they demonstrate “good behavior”. So if they make a decision that clearly contradicts the Constitution, they are subject to removal.
Report Post »Winghunter
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:07pmWell that alone dumps four of them right on their head, doesn’t it.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:20pmYes, but it takes cajones for a congress to actually do that. Part of the problem is the aura of unquestionable authority that hovers over the Court, an aura fostered by the lawyer class. This is why I love what Newt is doing here. If nothing else he is provoking an argumnet about the legitimacy of that aura, encouraging Congress and the Presidency to pick up the authority that they used to have decades ago.
Shake up the system! Kick over the card table because there are cheater at the table.
Go Newt! *
*I’m still boosting for Santorum though, ’cause I‘m unsure of Newt’s electability and of his constancy.
Report Post »Fella
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:57pmThis has nothing to do with the posted article. Please read the comment policy.
Report Post »JQCitizen
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:40pmSo Newt’s approach to one branch not respecting another branch is to have a third branch mis-behave? Every time I think he’s starting to look like the “grownup in the room” he comes out with something like THIS! Rick Santorum is starting to look better than ever. I don‘t think I’ve EVER heard him say something THIS outrageous!
Whatever happened to the Fourth Branch; – US? After all, WE are the ones with the votes to send them all packing, as well as the internet connections now to know what they’re up to. Keep the faith, people; It is OUR nation!
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:46pmNO, he talks about a BALANCE of power between the three branches… so that when one gets out of control, the other two branches can reign them in.
It hasn’t worked too well because the leftist liberal elites have had too much power too long. They are trying to do things that are unconstitutional, so they want the judges to write law from the bench to suit their agendas.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:48pm“So Newt’s approach to one branch not respecting another branch is to have a third branch mis-behave?”
Circular reasoning. It isn’t misbehaving. The power belongs to the people and to their representatives. Congress and the President are more responsive to the people by being elected. The people should always be able to override the actions of the Courts. this isn’t misbehavior. it’s republican democracy.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:49pmwhats outrageous about reigning in the unelected black-robed fascists?
Report Post »ninja
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:19pmwhat? and risk losing MY gravy train? surely you jest.
Report Post »JQCitizen
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 11:30pmSo my point is, that the power is with US, but it means WE must educate others. I know that is hard to do, when they seen to have the influence to “bribe” the citizenry with government goodies to keep them in office forever, but unless we do that, we will keep feeling “Whipped”, and that’s an unacceptable proposition for me. If the Congress is willing to be irrelevant, then give them the pink slips, and vote in someone who actually WANTS to represent us.
We are NOT THE FIRST to be in this position; David with Multiple Goliaths surrounding us!
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:39pmGingrich seems to be shaking things up on purpose.
Maybe that is why he is running.
He is opening people’s eyes and they are waking up and paying attention.
He also explains the conservative position better than any other candidate.
He is a teacher and encourager, and I think he is trying to empower conservatives to stand up against the LEFTIST ELITE BULLIES in the northeast, northwest and California that we have cowed and bowed to for WAY TOO LONG.
Report Post »checkit
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:47pmI say GREAT NEWT!
We have had Democrat socialist President after another and they ALWAYS do EXTREME votes, executive orders… I WILL VOTE FOR VOTE as every Republican Presidential candidate does NOTHING in any aggressive manner… IT IS ABOUT TIME WE HAD SOMEONE THAT IS NOT AFRAID and WILL take aggressive measures… If they succeed or not, II want to see a Republican President GO HARD CORE on the Left socialist agenda, just as they do to us. Screw them, Remove abortion, BAN Gay marriage, Removes Gays from the military, Drill for OIL! screw the Pita and Green peace morons…
Remove judges that legislate from the bench, YES! Remove Funds to ACORN, PBS, Dept of Arts, remove the Corrupt unions, etc… Clean America up… Tired of Weak Republicans… that can;t even get anything done that they believe in.
GO NEWT! Or Bachmann or Santorum !!!
Report Post »Ron PAUL is a FRAUD, Corrupt neo-liberal and that is a fact!
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 8:06pmChekit, Be careful of what you wish for. Let’s just decide that we want a dictator that will handle all our problems for us and we do not have to do the hard work that comes with liberty. Listen to yourself. You are acting like a complete moron. It is we the people that have to make the change. Look at my other posts above so I do not have to keep repeating myself. Think about what I am saying in those posts. I think that is scary in itself. You just want more. We all sit around and complain about the government, but then we turn arpound and continue to go with the same old candidate, why? Because we sit there with our face in the boob tube and listen to what the establishment wants us to hear. We listen more to what is said in the articles, by media juist like this one, argue and do not really listen to the people posting on here. We do not do the hard thing, and we ignore researching on our own. If we continue on in Washington in the same manner (different paths with different speeds toward the same end) our country WILL fall. Will life end? No. Life WILL end as we know it now. What will it be? ??? But I do not think Individual Liberty will stay. Just me I guess.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:38pm“WOULD CONSIDER SENDING CAPITOL POLICE TO ARREST ACTIVIST JUDGES”
Report Post »By “activist judges” do you mean “judges who make pro-Leftist rulings?”
Because activism cuts both ways–some conservatives took a VERY activist interpretation of the 14th amendment that is law TO THIS VERY DAY–don’t believe me? Look up the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Psychosis
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:57pmno, HE MEANS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS
it just so happens they are ALL leftist activist judges that frequently defy the constitution
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 5:04pmThe fact that you think there are such things as “UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS” by the Supreme Court speaks to your ignorance of the practice of law and jurisprudence–please take the time to actually LEARN about my profession, BEFORE you start passing judgment on it. Do I come to YOUR workplace and tell YOU how to do YOUR job? (no, no I do not)
The Supreme Court is to the Constitution what the Pope is to Catholic theology, infallible (because they are last in the chain of command, not because they are necessarily “right” in some cosmic sense)–they are the “final authority” (the last say) on what “the Constitution is” (what it legally entails). There is no higher authority to appeal to–what standard of validation WOULD you use? Your OWN personal opinion of what is “constitutional”? Well then that’s basically no different than the thing for which you are condemning the judges the doing. At that point, you should be appointing better judges if you don’t like their interpretation–not sending thought police after the ones who don’t get it the way you like (or maybe YOU should be the one studying law to become a judge if you think so much of your interpretation).
Do you see why what Newt asserts is ridiculous? He presumes he can use the Constitution as measure of objective validation of interpretations of the Constitution–but that’s just the problem, the Constitution is the thing that has to be interpreted.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 5:15pm“He presumes he can use the Constitution as measure of objective validation of interpretations of the Constitution–but that’s just the problem, the Constitution is the thing that has to be interpreted.”
But isn’t that exactly what the Court is doing? Since the Constitution has to be interpreted maybe it should be done by the people’s representatives.
Just a thought.
Report Post »gbrittain
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:34pmThat’s a misleading headline.
He said that if a judge like any other citizen is subpoenaed to testify before Congress refuses to appear, the Capitol Police or the Federal Marshals may arrest them and bring to testify.
The headline suggests that if the Congress does not like a ruling, Gingrich believes the judge should be arrested. That is not what he said.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:44pmMisleading headline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What’s new?
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:31pmAs much as I would like to see 90% of the govt criminals put behind bars, this shows newt is out of his mind. Washington needs to be reformed. And that starts with the people. As most of the people that post on this site know, the majority of the American people don’t even care. They just want “theirs”. Good luck on changing the govt. newt, your out of your mind!
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:42pmThe only voice the people have is the voice they send to Washington known as a state US Representative and a state US Senator! After you vote for the one your choice in your state, your voice is over until the next election. You can voice those concerns to your Senator or Rep and that’s it! What we need is some school teachers who can teach civics and government! When Beck preaches the people taking the government back of WE THE PEOPLE, that’s all it means, regardless of you or he might think!
Report Post »Stu D. Baker-Hawk
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:29pmIt seems that two of the three branches of our government answer to the American people, and the third does whatever the hell they want, much to decent society’s detriment. Newt’s take on the best way to handle activist federal judges may be fraught with hidden dangers, but SOMETHING has got to be done to rein in these arrogant b@$t@rd$.
Report Post »Countrygirl1362
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:40pmObama could do the same to conservative judges, then conservatives would be screaming that is not right and liberals would be cheering. If one party does it what is to stop the other party from doing it. Very slippery slope depending on who the current dictator is. They all seem to be about power and control. Soon the control will become absolute, with them telling us everything to do and think.
Report Post »GUNNSUP
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:42pmAgreed stu, these lib judges are getting out of control & something has to be done. If it takes something as Mr Ginrich suggested, then I am all for it. Liberalism has to be eliminatied. Its a nice term for communism
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:28pmConversely, Obama could do away with the Supreme Court decision to repeal Obamacare. This is not the way to deal with Judicial activism, because you’re going to essentially nullify the court.
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:35pmCanada has the ‘notwithstanding’ clause..
America had the federalist papers.. now discarded as a guide..
just like Vattel’s Law of Nations.. the guide that the Founders used to create the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:37pmYou didn’t listen to him say that Congress would have to agree with the President. My thinking is that such a decison would require a 2/3 to 3/4 vote in the Congress to nullify a SCOTUS decision.
It’s a simple procedure and would clarify the actual power of the Court.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:38pmgood, the court was never created to decide what is and what is not constitutional….they usurped that power in marbury v madison
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:23pmhttp://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [Emphasis added.}
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.
Not so.
Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:26pmHey voters. Catch this video report:
Report Post »http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Lab-Says-Electronic-Voting-Machines-Easy-to-Hack-132016698.html
garylee123
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:46pmEveryone should go and read this!!!
Report Post »NDPINDNT
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:21pmEven if he is right on this, it will not win him an election. He has to appear more to the center. That’s how Obama was elected. It will scare the hell out of anyone on the fence and especially anyone on the left that was thinking about voting against Obama. He will probably start dropping in the polls now with comments like this.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:30pmNewt is self-destructing.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:36pmHe may be elected, He may be appealing to a higher authority and his reward might not be on this earth!
Report Post »What has happen to a justice system is president, every time a lawyer argues a case, he researches all court records to find a previous ruling in a case in his/her favor, if he can find just one ruling where it is in the favor that he is trying to argue, he will cite that court case number, example Rowe vs Wade and win the case, even though some activist liberal judge made an incorrect ruling and there has been hundreds of good constituional Judges have ruled and made desicions in the opposite direction! That’s how we have drifted so far from the constitution!
spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:11pmAmericans should be scared as hell about what will happen if we don’t vote for a strong and unwaivering pro-life president who knows the constitution and the limits runaway judges have. He/she better have the wisdom and courage to use the constitution in protecting American citizens against the UN, radical environmentalist, ACLU, and all others who have perverted the constitution for their own agendas. Newt never overstepped his boundaries as speaker, he respects the constitution and the American people-unlike Obama.Romney forced healthcare on Mass.people similiar as Obama care…that is scary.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 8:46pmSpreadthFaith, At first I thaought you were talking about Paul, but then you lost me with Newt the dictator wannabe.
Report Post »Welfare-Warfare State
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:19pmThen he’ll have to arrest almost all of them. Perhaps Clarence Thomas comes closest to a strict constructionist, but even he has from time to time drifted into activism.
Take the federal drug laws as but one example of activism. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal drug laws, but federal justices act as if there is. It’s a state and local issue. By that measure, they are all activists.
The abuse of the Commerce Clause is another area where “conservative” justices and “liberal” justices typically do the same things. Are they all to be arrested?
This latest nonsense from Newt demonstrates for the millionth time for anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature why he should never be placed in any position of power, much less the presidency.
He’s a statist. So is Romney, but at least Romney isn’t corrupt or zany.
Oh, almost forgot…
Ron Paul 2012 :)
Report Post »checkit
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:34pmBesides Paul being completely wacko, he is corrupt and deceitful.
He made it clear in the last debate HE votes “NO” on all Pork… WE all heard it and how he gives the Pork money to HIS constituents… The ole obama share the wealth socialist theme.
This was Known prior to Paul confessing it in the last debate.
Busted Lying, Stuffing Pork (money) into bills that he knows will pass, but then he votes “NO” on them to look good, more corruption! who would be this deceitful?: http://youtu.be/GyPLFKUdhqY
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the libertarian right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/15/nation/na-ticket15
But WHO is this corrupt or Insane?
Hes stuffs bills with PORK, then VOTES “NO” on ALL of them to look good to the public? Who is that low and deceitful?
He is against PORK, BUT he stuffs bills with PORK??? then Votes “NO” but then gives that money to his constituents???
If he is FOR pork JUST VOTE YES! This is ONE of many signs he is NOT mentally stable.
Stuffs Pork (money into bills) then VOTES NO on them????? Either Corrupt or Mentally challenged… Which is it?
How can one be against PORK, voting “NO” but stuffs bills with PORK and then being against PORK gives it to his people…? totally amazing.
Lets say he is just mentally gone, for argument sake… What would happen if ALL the Congressman did
Fella
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:00pmReally torqued off the Newt army of progressive trolls with this one. Lol
Report Post »cous1933
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 6:58pmI encourage everyone to look at Checkits two links. Ron Paul explains brilliantly why he puts earmarks in bills and votes no. Anyone with any working brain cells and any integrity at all will see that what Paul is doing is EXACTLY what a good representative should do.
He votes no on all of those spending bills because he always votes against spending, but knowing that our big-spending government will likely pass the bills anyways and the money is going to be spent, he may as well recover some for his constituents. He is not compromising his principles because he will always vote against spending, and he is doing his district a favor by recovering some of their tax money.
This has been explained ad nauseum and only a true simpleton would say it’s unethical.
As for what would happen if every representative did this – Paul answered that in the last debate – that would be fantastic because then none of these bills would pass. There would not only be no more pork, but there would be far less government spending. I wish every rep would do that.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 9:13pmChekit, you just make yourself look silly. Why do you Progressives always come on here and spout about things you know nothing about? Here is Ron Paul on why right from the link you gave.
Report Post »Ron Paul;
“The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. . . .I don’t think the federal government should be doing it. But if they’re going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, Hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I’m their representative.”
Fella
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 9:34pmIf he were truly concerned about earmark abuse he’d consider Newts record on the matter which is abysmal when compared to Paul.
“During his tenure as House speaker, Gingrich oversaw a dramatic expansion of the use of earmarks, laying the groundwork for a frenzy of itemized expenditures over the next decade, according to congressional records and interviews.”
“Not only did earmark spending in Congress increase between 1994 and 1998, when he departed, the overall dollar amount roughly doubled.
In 1994, Congress inserted 1,318 earmarks into federal spending bills, costing taxpayers $7.8 billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. Total spending on earmarks peaked three years later to a whopping $14.5 billion. By 1998, Gingrich’s last year as speaker, the total number of projects reached 2,143 at a cost of $13.2 billion.
“Speaker Gingrich set in motion the largest explosion of earmarks in the history of Congress,” said Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste. “
Report Post »Continental Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:17pmSo if congress or the White House are occupied by liberal democrats again (hopefully not), they should have the right to overturn a conservative judge and their rulings? A right which liberals would die to have. I‘m sure we’ll hear Newt amending this position once confronted with that little factoid.
Report Post »Continental Patriot
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:20pmI should also say that I fully agree with the fact he puts forth, which is that liberal or left-leaning judges ultimately want to undermine the constitution and change our rights to fit their commie agenda. Newt is just suggesting a solution that sounds nice initially but has big government implications that could easily work against us is the liberals ever gain power again.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:26pmAnd if liberals do that and overplay their hand, as they did two years ago, they will face a voters’ revolt. In the end it all goes back to the People, nless judges are allowed to illegitimately write their opinions into the Constitution.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:00pmThat would be a long time to wait to get out of jail after having you r rights violated. The system doesn’t work because they do not keep each other in check. The judges job is to keep the congressman and the President honest. It is to ensure they don’t violate our rights. The supreme court is failing at their duties, and so are the people for voting away everybody’s rights to suit the current whims of the day. NDAA was voted in 97-3…only 3 senators held to the constitution
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:15pmGINGRICH explained a lot today on Face the Nation, including the Freddie/Fannie thing and protecting our nationalism.
LINK – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57344818/face-the-nation-transcript-december-18-2011/
I like him – at least he has the guts to tell the truth about the courts bullying the people, changing the law and taking on too much power, about the Palestinians and he makes sense about the mess this nation is in.
He seems to have the know how to do something about it.
Maybe he should ask Bachmann and Santorum to be on his cabinet…and if he does not win the nomination, offer himself as an advisor to conservatives and still follow Obama around the country and refute him after every speech during the next year.
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:29pmAt least Newt is willing to TAKE ON THE ELITES, ( the social agenda PC radical agendas that have taken over everything, stopping children from praying in schools, those who lie about the agenda of Islam, etc.).
He explains conservative concerns (faith, Constitutional protection, US history, etc.) better than some of the other candidates. He will have to convince a lot of people that he has changed and is a new person and will be a steady, trustworthy, accountable, conservative leader.
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:38pmI agree, the constitution was and is still being perverted by our courts. He’s not perfect but neither was Reagan.He does have the determination and the courage to go against environmental extremists,the UN,self-interested politicians,and those that want to destroy this country’s judeo-christian values. Romney gave Mass. romney care.. Newt never tried to force arrogant socialist control like that as speaker of the house.He’s pro -school choice/homeschool, strong on national security, wants people working,will protect traditional marriage, freedom of religion. We need a president who will push back the radicals in this country who are determined to transform it by undermining and even trampling the constitution.
Report Post »stockpicker
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:14pmNewt lights his own match.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:10pmI couldn’t disagree with a single thing he said. He is spot on. There are three co-equal branches. If the Congress and President agree against the Court the Court must lose. This is the only way our Constitutional freedom can exist.
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:16pmThat is not how separation of powers works.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:24pmIf any law is passed by the legislature, the president must sign it and the Judge must uphold the law, all branches of government must be in agreement for the law to be enforced and exist and they must continue to be in agreement for any law to continue to exist… period!
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:26pmThat is also not how separation of powers works.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:39pmgary, isles is right…nowhere in the constitution is the court given the role of deciding what laws are, or are not, constitutional.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:42pmIf Congress passes a law by mere majority and the President signs it, it becomes law. If the President vetoes it, it can still become law if Congress can muster a veto override. This would be like a veto override of the Court.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:05pmI told you that Newt is a megalomaniacal sociopath who would drastically expand Police State power to achieve political means.
Now, it’s proven by his own words.
Ron Paul 2012 FTW.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 10:44pmHe’s also disgustingly smug and arrogant to match his megalomania and D -bag status as an adulterer.
Report Post »modilly
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:04pmAnd all those outrageous comments from the Paul detractors who think that Newt is the way! This proves their incredibility. Looks like they need a reality check.
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:11pmWhat are talking about?
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:19pmIf anyone believes any Judge has to power to control a student’s speech in listing and controlling common words they can say by arresting the school superintendent, they are in agreement that a Judge can deprive anyone of their first amendment rights, if Ron Paul and his supporters doesn’t believe this, they are not for the constitutional rights!
Report Post »Newt 2012
Fella
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:21pmHe’s talking about the double edge sword that went flying over your head, Scottsman. Newt is downright dangerous.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 12:44amGary, You are an idiot. Let’s just tell all of them that getting even farther away from the Constitution is a good thing. Moron. All of you. If we continue to elect candidates that do not care about the Constitution, we will lose our liberty and our country, guaranteed. Soon my friends, things are going to get real tough. I just hope we do not get someone in there that we will regret. Another Progressive, no matter which side of the aisle they are on, will cause the collapse of the greatest Nation the world has ever seen. Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »Marci
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:00pmHe is correct about the activist judges–no doubt. But his position that Congress and the President should be able to ignore any rulings is dangerous. He is no better than Barry on this. It’s a brave thing to say, but it endangers us all just the same. Newt is another big government Republican, and any attempt to hide this is failing. Saying that those rulings should be ignored is saying yet again like Executive Order Barry, what they won’t do, I will–I’ll just go over them. What should happen instead is no more lifetime appointments for judges. I understand the original intent for this, but what it has turned out to be is that with no fear of losing their jobs, they become activists and out of touch with reality. Because they are appointed, they reflect only one viewpoint usually—that of the person who appointed them. This is glaringly obvious in Obama’s choices. Of course, for anyone who bothered to pay attention before this Marxist was elected, this was one of his plans and he as much as stated how he would eventually stack the courts in progressive favor. Obviously, our once solid judiciary system has become one of the biggest dangers to us. Instead of adhering to the constitution, they “INTERPRET” it with their own viewpoints.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:03pmGingrich broke the ice, then if President Obama does it, then it is alright?
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:04pm“Activism” defined, comes down to perception.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:21pmOne hundred years, or more, of Progressive thought… has opened the door for Communism, Atheism, and every other AntiAmerican expression emanating from a Social Sector that lives upon Entitlements. The Founders built our System for Americans… not for a Foreign Agency acting a Political Party. But, to straighten out our System… we must address the possiblity of a Civil War.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:22pmNewt is fundamentally corrrect. People treat the Supreme Court as if its decisions have the same authority as the Constitution, as if they can sovereignly interpret the constitution. The only thing that is supreme over the President and Congress is the Constitution. To change it requires an ammenment, which goes before the PEOPLE. Nine men in robes do not have the right to effectively change the supreme law of the land. but that is what is going on right now.
Newt was thinking exactly what i have been thinking when he said that three branches of government means that in a conflict it’s a two to one decision. If SCOTUS screws up the Congress and President have to be in agreement on it to change it. And Congress should be in 2/3 or 3/4 agreement to do so. That preserves the will of the people and that it is deliberative. SCOTUS has assumed far too much power and authority.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:26pmIf the judiciary was truly solid in the first place (from a conservative standpoint) the transition towards liberal radicalism would never be where it is now.
The one consistent thing I’m reading across many boards is that people are looking for a instant “cure” for the country’s ills within ONE candidate. This isn’t how it works. Amazingly, the left wing understands this concept and they’ve slowly, but consistently eroded the country to where it is today. We, as a people, have been herded like cattle into this instant gratification society with tools like texting, microwave ovens, and general conveniences that make life effortless. But I digress.
I prefer Newt because I understand that he ISN’T the magic pill, but just the beginning of a larger therapeutic treatment towards getting the spine of the country straight again. I view him as a step in the process, not a total cure. He may be a pill that is hard to swallow, but necessary none the less. Ron Paul would be well suited for a fiscal role under Newt. Romney would serve well as a job czar (pardon the term) and Bachmann would do well under the dept of energy or social issues (for example).
The bottom line is they all have their place in the next administration to be used to their talents.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:56pmFascit…
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:54pmScalia Thomas Roberts arrested, Newt is a fool
Report Post »PGMike
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:56pmFor better or worse, these are the kind of comments that lose elections.
Report Post »bringiton
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:58pmDamn, you’re a numbnut.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:13pmThe headline is misleading. He was talking about making them expalin themselves before Congress which has the power to impeach judges.
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:32pmGingrich did NOT say that. He said the Congress and President had the power to reign in rogue judges who were revising the law and Constitution or mis-using their power for a political agenda.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:34pm“Scalia Thomas Roberts arrested, Newt is a fool”
You could also take that as what a liberal activist PieceOfShtUS President would do with the powers Gingrich talked about… “to do away with the 9th circuit” for activism is like doing away with the House of Representatives for activism. A justice should only be an objective scholar, but the very thing he criticizes the Supreme Court for would give that same power to the presidency. That was the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted.
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:41pmRINO – listen again. Newt talks about a BALANCE of power, not a radical president taking over.
You guys are over-reacting.
TRY LISTENING to what he says instead of doing what the liberals did about his ideas for kids learning to work.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:43pmThere should be checks and balances. Who is going to haul the congressman to answer for their crimes against the constitution? If the activist judges team up with the communist president, they can over rule the Congress? Maybe its time to shoot them all and start over. We are getting nowhere fast.
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 4:53pmWhat will other candidates do to stop these run away judges who have no intention on staying within their boundaries and quite frankly believe the constitution is a burden. Most dems and many republicans are even more afraid of Newt than they were of Reagan. The progressive republicans would rather have Obama, a McCain, a Romney, than a president who is good at getting control back into the hands of the people they serve.
Report Post »