Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[johnwk]

Maybe, if we were a democracy and not a republic. We don't go for mob rule. The Constitution doesn't allow for that sort of meddling by one branch against another. If judges are committing crimal acts, impeach them, otherwise hands off. I'm surprised that this could be coming from some who usually hold the Constitution sacrosanct!

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The entirety of your argument can be summed up as,

I believe one opinion should be held superior over another opinion because I like that one opinion better than the other one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why would you need to subpoena a judge to explain his decision when his decision is already thoroughly explained IN the decision?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Would you like a list of the posters on the left who are calling for Roberts and Scalia to be impeached because the think they will rule against Obamacare?

I would.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fallacious nonsense at best.

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

Your turkey is full of authoritarian shit? I usually put cornbread stuffing in mine.

 

[Maple]

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.

It is unconstituitional, there is a separation of powers, and should this happen that knife cuts both ways, you could have a conservative judge brought before a liberal congress.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't know where these doofuses (doofi?) get the idea that an official can only be impeached for committing a crime. They can be impeached for anything that makes enough people think that they should no longer be allowed to hold office. It hasn't been uncommon in our history - or in the history of Great Britain before us - to impeach officials for being insane, or senile, or alcoholics. And yes, for incompetence. The purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to allow the people to protect themselves from bad officials wielding power harmfully. After all, we already HAVE a mechanism for dealing with criminals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

It's so much fun to watch pretend Americans try to convince themselves that attempts to reverse their destruction of the Constitution is destroying the Constitution.

On the other hand, it's so much fun to watch liberals pretend they're thinking adults.

 

[The T]

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.

I don't know where these doofuses (doofi?) get the idea that an official can only be impeached for committing a crime. They can be impeached for anything that makes enough people think that they should no longer be allowed to hold office. It hasn't been uncommon in our history - or in the history of Great Britain before us - to impeach officials for being insane, or senile, or alcoholics. And yes, for incompetence. The purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to allow the people to protect themselves from bad officials wielding power harmfully. After all, we already HAVE a mechanism for dealing with criminals.

The people have the ultimate say. But that would assuming having representatives that will carry it out and not just letting rogue judges pass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I don't know where these doofuses (doofi?) get the idea that an official can only be impeached for committing a crime. They can be impeached for anything that makes enough people think that they should no longer be allowed to hold office. It hasn't been uncommon in our history - or in the history of Great Britain before us - to impeach officials for being insane, or senile, or alcoholics. And yes, for incompetence. The purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to allow the people to protect themselves from bad officials wielding power harmfully. After all, we already HAVE a mechanism for dealing with criminals.

The people have the ultimate say. But that would assuming having representatives that will carry it out and not just letting rogue judges pass.

Well, it is the responsibility of the people to safeguard their rights by electing representatives who will safeguard their rights. As things stand now, we basically have gotten what we deserve, in a collective sense, because we've allowed ourselves to become a lazy, stupid, complacent, apathetic people.

 

[The T]

I don't know where these doofuses (doofi?) get the idea that an official can only be impeached for committing a crime. They can be impeached for anything that makes enough people think that they should no longer be allowed to hold office. It hasn't been uncommon in our history - or in the history of Great Britain before us - to impeach officials for being insane, or senile, or alcoholics. And yes, for incompetence. The purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to allow the people to protect themselves from bad officials wielding power harmfully. After all, we already HAVE a mechanism for dealing with criminals.

The people have the ultimate say. But that would assuming having representatives that will carry it out and not just letting rogue judges pass.

Well, it is the responsibility of the people to safeguard their rights by electing representatives who will safeguard their rights. As things stand now, we basically have gotten what we deserve, in a collective sense, because we've allowed ourselves to become a lazy, stupid, complacent, apathetic people.

No arguement with you on that point at all.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

Indeed, the thinking is ridiculous. Congress must undertake actions and powers clearly beyond the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders, in order to ensure that judges maintain the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders.

 

[Maple]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

Indeed, the thinking is ridiculous. Congress must undertake actions and powers clearly beyond the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders, in order to ensure that judges maintain the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders.

Newt the dictator is what this would turn out to be. Because if he does not agree with a judge's decision he would have them arrested and brought before the congress, sounds like some of the 3rd world countries constitution enforced by a dictator.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

Tell us what Supreme Court decisions you like, in terms of outcome, but concede were not constitutionally sound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

A judicial ruling that no more than debatable as to its correct interpretation of the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

Indeed, the thinking is ridiculous. Congress must undertake actions and powers clearly beyond the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders, in order to ensure that judges maintain the constitution as written and the intentions of the founders.

Newt the dictator is what this would turn out to be. Because if he does not agree with a judge's decision he would have them arrested and brought before the congress, sounds like some of the 3rd world countries constitution enforced by a dictator.

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU? Congress routinely calls members of the executive branch before them to answer questions about how they're doing the people's business, and I don't see anyone screaming about "Unconstitutional!" or "third-world dictator!" Where in the Constitution do you find that the judicial branch is allowed to do exactly as it pleases, with absolutely no one having any ability to reign them in? What sort of "balance of powers" is THAT?

 

[johnwk]

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

Tell us what Supreme Court decisions you like, in terms of outcome, but concede were not constitutionally sound.

Huh? My object, which I thought I explained, is that Supreme Court decisions should all be arrived at following (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) be in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.

I also gave a specific example, the Kelo case in which a fundamental rule of constitutional law was ignored and the decision is not in harmony with the intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted with respect to rights associated with property ownership.

JWK


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

 

[paperview]

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU? ...

Gingrich himself said he would have them arrested by Capital Police or US Marshalls if they failed to appear for the subpoena.

 

[paperview]

Never mind he doesn't even have that power.

lol

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU? ...

Gingrich himself said he would have them arrested by Capital Police or US Marshalls if they failed to appear for the subpoena.

That's what one usually does when someone ignores a subpoena. But for me to assume that's going to be standard operating procedure would require me to assume that judges are as pig-stupid about the law - and pretty much everything - as the leftists on this board, and would ignore a subpoena.