Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[NYcarbineer]

In a strict interpretation there is always differences between medical procedures, unless you are an idiot who does not understand the difference between left and right.

Really? Where in the constitution is there any reference whatsoever to a fetus?

You can't get to 'fetus' without 'interpretation', or without drawing on resources outside the Constitution.

Using the Constitution strictly and literally, in the manner johnwk insists on, show us the difference between an abortion and an appendectomy.

I am sorry, I was assuming you were talking from a medical standpoint since the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all. Forgive me for presuming I was talking to someone who is intelligent. I will not make that mistake again.

Your two statements contradict each other, first you say in a strict interpretation there is always a difference between medical procedures, and then you say the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all.

Which is it, asshole?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

Exactly! The 13th Amendment ended slavery and the 19th ended sex discrimination with regard to voting. And that is the beauty of our system of government. It allows the people of the various states under Article V to amend our federal Constitution to accommodate changing times, but in doing so it requires the consent of the governed as outlined in Article V! Neither our judges nor Supreme Court Justices have been granted the authority to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the people when performing their primary function which is to enforce our Constitution and its legislative intent.

JWK


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

You just thoroughly refuted the entire premise of your thread. The People can amend the Constitution if they want change, including wanting to change judicial decisions.

You don't throw judges in jail as Newt would.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? Where in the constitution is there any reference whatsoever to a fetus?

You can't get to 'fetus' without 'interpretation', or without drawing on resources outside the Constitution.

Using the Constitution strictly and literally, in the manner johnwk insists on, show us the difference between an abortion and an appendectomy.

I am sorry, I was assuming you were talking from a medical standpoint since the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all. Forgive me for presuming I was talking to someone who is intelligent. I will not make that mistake again.

Your two statements contradict each other, first you say in a strict interpretation there is always a difference between medical procedures, and then you say the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all.

Which is it, asshole?

Like I said, I presumed I was talking to an intelligent person. Intelligent people understand that, since the constitution does not discuss medical procedures, any discussion of interpreting them must be referring to something else, like, as a wild example, medical textbooks. A strict interpretation of medical textbooks would tell me that all medical procedures are different.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Johnwk has contradicted himself above, and he clearly does not understand American history, culture, or our constitutional procedures. Fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Johnwk has contradicted himself above, and he clearly does not understand American history, culture, or our constitutional procedures. Fail.

Damn, all this time I thought he was wrong. I will have to rethink his position.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Gingrich's idea is kookoo.

Elaborate. You don't get to make drive by comments.
Give examples, Explain yourself.
Responses such as "it just is" are not acceptable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

Doesn't really matter, he doesn't really believe in the right to privacy anyway.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

The right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected, overrides any rights granted a fetus, which has absolutely no Constitutional protection in a strict interpretation.

Go read Roe v. Wade and remind yourself how the court came to the conclusion that post first trimester fetuses could be granted rights and protections by the states.

And where does the word "privacy" appear in our federal Constitution? I think you are relying upon a misrepresentation of our Constitution by the Court!


JWK

"Privacy" rights are right there with the "Separation of Church and State"....
Neither exist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

Ye gods. This is what reading comprehension has been reduced to.

Please tell me, oh embarrassment to educated women everywhere, where in that Amendment you see "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Anyone who could actually read above a 5th grade level and had learned to diagram a simple sentence would understand that it is citing well-regulated militias as a reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not restricting it only to militia members. You CAN see the difference between "right of militia members" and "right of the people", correct?

And just to top it off, where does the phrase "shall not be infringed" leave ANY room for the states to prohibit gun ownership AT ALL, given that said right belongs to "the people", aka the general citizenry of the United States?

I can answer that....Liberals see, read an hear what they want to see read and hear.
And in the absence of a clear and definitive stance, they respond with "So you mean"...Or "I was under the impression that..."......Or "I heard/read somewhere that..."....
This is how stupid shit like the "separation of Church and State" and the "right to privacy" stuff gained traction. \
I do not want government to have the ability to do warrantless snooping. I don't want the authorities to be able to bust in my door I don't want government in my life at all.
BUT.....I think there are instances where people are in imminent danger the government should have the ability to protect life and limb as long as government acts in good faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The loonies from the far right continue to babble.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

[You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights (even in the Bill of Rights)-it restricts what the government can do. There's a big distinction between restricting the government's power and granting people rights, and it it's a main reason why the Constitution is such a great document.


For the record-on abortion I happen to be pro-life. I'm against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. But the Constitution doesn't mention any medical practices

 

[JakeStarkey]

However, James, consider Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

However, James, consider Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26.

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

[paperview]

The right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected, overrides any rights granted a fetus, which has absolutely no Constitutional protection in a strict interpretation.

Go read Roe v. Wade and remind yourself how the court came to the conclusion that post first trimester fetuses could be granted rights and protections by the states.

And where does the word "privacy" appear in our federal Constitution? I think you are relying upon a misrepresentation of our Constitution by the Court!


JWK

"Privacy" rights are right there with the "Separation of Church and State"....
Neither exist.

Apparently, you seem to be of the ill-begotten belief Rights are only those that are enumerated.

You would be wrong.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

So you want a free people to be stuck with the obsolete opinions of 200 years ago, when to think that the King was not appointed by God was considered Far Left?

 

[Martinsamerica]

I can certainly see Speaker Gingrich's point about the judges, as there are many activist ones who do not follow the letter or spirit of the constitution. I do also however tend to think we are on a slippery slope if we begin a process that Newt suggests, while the intention may be good from Newt's perspective, there is surely be mny politicians to come that will use his concept as a way to further their own power/agenda.

martinsamerica.com

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

 

[paperview]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

Jefferson was in Paris. They didn't purposefully do shit.

And the concept of Judicial Review was actually in the constitutions of nine of thirteen states at the time the Constitution was signed, and seven of nine Constitutional Delegates were in favor of the principle.
The principle was commonly accepted, and Marshall easily grounded SCOTUS supremacy in an interpretation of Article III.