Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[johnwk]

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.

 

[johnwk]

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.

 

[johnwk]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

Judges answering to Congress? Yeah, I'm sure our checks and balances would still be the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Judges answering to Congress? Yeah, I'm sure our checks and balances would still be the same.

Constitutional procedure governs the branches, not Newtie' strange philosophy.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

 

[ba1614]

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.

 

[amrchaos]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

(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!!

 

[Jackson]

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.

The president has nothing to do with what JWK is talking about. Congress has jurisdiction over all legal cases it chooses to look at.

 

[Jackson]

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

I agree with you that Gingrich's ideas have merit. But as reality would hit us in the face, it would only take politics to put a wrench into the system and vote according to left-right biases. Would we have enough independent thinkers in Congress to overrule an activist judge?

 

[American Horse]

My impression of Gingrich's comment was not that he as president would take any presidential action; he was speaking of congressional actions. Congress has the power of subpoena and the justice dept has the power to enforce subpoenas.

Would doing this serve the greater interest of the American public?
Might not it be in their interest if judges making decisions where they read their own loose interpretation into the constitution be asked by the "Assembly of the People" how they rationalized that decision? Wouldn't the threat of such action by congress promote closer adherence to the constitution? Wouldn't better scholarship viz constitutional law be one positive outcome?

Many on the left will eviserate Gingrich for making this comment, take it out of context the better to own the argument. but most Americans want closer scrutiny and adherence and will see a positive.

Gingrich, as president, need take no direct presidential action, simply state a policy that should be adopted by the congress, and his willingness to support the policy. The enactment resolves around the skill of a judge to exlain how he got from A to B, congress is thus better informed in the drafting of legislation to cope with those decisions when they are at odds, and judges forewarned that they are subject to explaining how they made the decision vis-a-vis the constitution.

Polls show people are concerned about the direction of the country and think that enforcement of the basic rule-book would help. That was the primary motivator of the TPM and still is. They may be seen as "the lumpen masses" by those who fancy themselves the cognoscenti, but those elitists are greatly outnumbered among voters.

It will be a net positive for Gingrich.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

I love it when leftist twats drape themselves in the Constitution, and then cite it wrong. Did you forget all about "checks and balances", where every branch can be reined in by the others, in order to prevent any of them from becoming too dictatorial, in your leftist rush to use the courts as an end-run around people's rights? Did we totally miss the part where officials can be impeached (which would certainly necessitate subpoenas and asking questions beforehand), or were you just so stupid you thought that only meant the President? Perhaps you missed all the times the Executive Branch is called in and forced to explain its actions to Congress, and through them, the people. Or was it just that you thought that only applied to the Executive Branch?

The courts have been allowed to run wild and do exactly as they please for far too long, but that doesn't mean they have a right to do so, or that we have to continue to let them.

 

[JWBooth]

Fallacious nonsense at best.

Gingreich is as full of authoritarian shit as a Thanksgiving turkey.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I see a definite need to lose judges who consistently make insane rulings that have to be overturned. We have procedures in place to protect people from judges like that, and we never use them because we've somehow gotten the notion that judgeships are a lifetime pass to do whatever they want without consequences.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

I love it when leftist twats drape themselves in the Constitution, and then cite it wrong. Did you forget all about "checks and balances", where every branch can be reined in by the others, in order to prevent any of them from becoming too dictatorial, in your leftist rush to use the courts as an end-run around people's rights? Did we totally miss the part where officials can be impeached (which would certainly necessitate subpoenas and asking questions beforehand), or were you just so stupid you thought that only meant the President? Perhaps you missed all the times the Executive Branch is called in and forced to explain its actions to Congress, and through them, the people. Or was it just that you thought that only applied to the Executive Branch?

The courts have been allowed to run wild and do exactly as they please for far too long, but that doesn't mean they have a right to do so, or that we have to continue to let them.

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

 

[Jackson]

I hate it when I run out of reps!

 

[Jackson]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

I love it when leftist twats drape themselves in the Constitution, and then cite it wrong. Did you forget all about "checks and balances", where every branch can be reined in by the others, in order to prevent any of them from becoming too dictatorial, in your leftist rush to use the courts as an end-run around people's rights? Did we totally miss the part where officials can be impeached (which would certainly necessitate subpoenas and asking questions beforehand), or were you just so stupid you thought that only meant the President? Perhaps you missed all the times the Executive Branch is called in and forced to explain its actions to Congress, and through them, the people. Or was it just that you thought that only applied to the Executive Branch?

The courts have been allowed to run wild and do exactly as they please for far too long, but that doesn't mean they have a right to do so, or that we have to continue to let them.

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I love it when leftist twats drape themselves in the Constitution, and then cite it wrong. Did you forget all about "checks and balances", where every branch can be reined in by the others, in order to prevent any of them from becoming too dictatorial, in your leftist rush to use the courts as an end-run around people's rights? Did we totally miss the part where officials can be impeached (which would certainly necessitate subpoenas and asking questions beforehand), or were you just so stupid you thought that only meant the President? Perhaps you missed all the times the Executive Branch is called in and forced to explain its actions to Congress, and through them, the people. Or was it just that you thought that only applied to the Executive Branch?

The courts have been allowed to run wild and do exactly as they please for far too long, but that doesn't mean they have a right to do so, or that we have to continue to let them.

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

Oh, so like when the Supreme Court decided a corporation was a person?

 

[007]

When votes on issues like homosexual marriage for example are put to referendum votes and decided by a majority of the populace, and then a liberal court with activist judges overturn the majority vote by the people, then yes, CLEARLY there is ACTIVISM going on by ACTIVIST JUDGES. They want to MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH, not interpret it, and those judges should have their liberal, activist cans hauled up before congress to be investigated and possibly impeached. Newt is right, and I'm fully behind him on this one, as are many, many people I imagine, as he is currently enjoying another up tick in his poll numbers. He got a thundering applause when he made his comments at the last Iowa debate.