Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by johnwk, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


    Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


    “The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

    deleted

    cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
    JWK



    Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    I am very surprised there is little interest in Gingrich’s proposal. What Gingrich’s proposal addresses is in fact our courts ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law, ignoring the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and doing so to impose its whims and fancies upon the people of the united States without their consent. Is this the kind of Supreme Court the America People want?

    Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), is an example of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion totally ignoring a fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the meaning of words in our Constitution to be understood as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted. Justice Stevens gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, admitted it was a new meaning, and thereby ignored a fundamental rule of constitutional law to permit the taking of private property! Justice Thomas on the other hand documented Steven’s expanded meaning of “public use” was “divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document”.

    I believe this is the kind of situation Mr. Gingrich seeks to provide a remedy for. And, his remedy is within Congress’ powers, so long as Mr. Gingrich’s idea is to subpoena e.g. Justice Stevens before a Congressional oversight committee for the sole purpose of comparing his written decision to the fundamental rules of constitutional law ___ in this case the meaning of “public use” as found in our Constitution, and to the documented intentions for which private property may be taken by government ___ giving Justice Stevens an opportunity to provide historical evidence supporting his written opinion is within the four walls of our Constitution and avoid a recommendation by the committee to proceed to articles of impeachment.

    Cut short per usmb policy

    link up to your source, per USMB policy.....even if you were the original writer, link up to where you posted this comment first on the net.
    JWK



    Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.
     
  3. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    Congressional oversight is a primary function of Congress and subpoenaing witnesses to testify to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation is within Congress' powers. See,Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927)


    Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived at (1), in compliance with the fundamental rules of constitutional law; and (2), how it is in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution?


    Is it not in our best interests to agree to follow the fundamental rules of constitutional law and enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?


    JWK



    Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote
     
  4. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,706
    Thanks Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,221
    Specious nonsense. Only Congress can withdraw jurisdiction of certain cases from SCOTUS. The President has nothing to do with it, other than try to influence impeachment procedings.

    This is a major blow to his nomination and election chances.
     
  5. DontBeStupid
    Offline

    DontBeStupid Look it up!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ratings:
    +422
    Judges answering to Congress? Yeah, I'm sure our checks and balances would still be the same.
     
  6. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,706
    Thanks Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,221
    Constitutional procedure governs the branches, not Newtie' strange philosophy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

    "What Constitution?", asks the GOP.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. ba1614
    Offline

    ba1614 Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,812
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Deep in the Northern Woods
    Ratings:
    +876
    He was talking about this the other night .and the case he cited was overruled on appeal anyway. So the system worked and the nutter judge has another overturn on his record.

    I don't see the need for this.
     
  9. amrchaos
    Offline

    amrchaos Pentheus torn apart

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,501
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +2,573

    (SARCASM)

    But the Constituion is Archaic! It is Passe! It is an ancient document that cannot compete with our changing world!! It is time for a new way of doing things!!

    Like electing me as "El Presidente for life" kind of new thing!!:badgrin:
     
  10. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,629
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,672
    The president has nothing to do with what JWK is talking about. Congress has jurisdiction over all legal cases it chooses to look at.
     

Share This Page