Gingrich view of the Judiciary is Constitutionally Balanced
Former Speaker of the House and Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is getting criticism from lawyers over his views of judicial accountability, specifically his call to subpoena justices before Congress who abuse their authority. Some are arguing that this is an imbalance of power. Gingrich, ever the historian, understands that the Court has become unaccountable. He is merely trying to rebuild a government based on separation of powers.
The current debate centers over what the founding fathers intended: did they intend for the Judiciary to be the final say in our government? I have been taught that through the secular liberal American education system that our government consists of three branches the legislative, which writes, the law, the executive, which enforces the law and the judiciary which interprets it. Further the judiciary is appointed by the executive, so the argument goes, and confirmed, by the legislative branch for life terms so they can be "non-political." If they don't have to be accountable to the people to the political bosses they become the all knowing, all wise arbiter of liberty.
What has evolved from this view of government is a powerful left wing movement that advances it's causes judicially and denies the people their liberty and has transformed our government to an olgarchy. What I mean is that when you think of most of the radical social changes that has shaped this country over the last 30-years many have been forced on us by the courts. The secularization of our schools and governments has been accomplished, judicially. The control over who serves in the military and how they prosecute their enemies has been taken over by the courts. The destruction of the American family, and the replacement of it with all kinds of "alternative lifestyles," has been advance judicially. Most of these decision have been at odds with the people and their elected representatives? It is accurate to say that the court has been used to advance a liberal agenda against the will of the people. How can anyone call this "non-political?"
The court has become a political tool of the left. For many years the democratic party was dominant in politics. As a result most of the judges on the federal bench are democratic appointees with a liberal viewpoint. As liberal causes increasingly fail legislatively or at the ballot box their supporters turn to judges who owe them for their offices and power. When the people and the legislature don't give liberals what the want they call in their chips with the judiciary. (This is not an opinion. This is history) Recent rulings have been pay back to the power brokers that got judges where they are rather than a defense of the Constitution. Anyone who thinks putting on a black robe makes one above politics and human human nature understands neither. Gingrich is right when he says that if a conservative view of society is going to have influence in culture the judiciary must be realigned.
Is his suggestion of holding judges accountable to Congress for radical decisions and even closing courts or impeaching justices a matter of solving one abuse with another, or are the current remedy's insufficient? Recently I heard a legal commentator state that the problem with Gingrich's view is that Congress did not have the right to call members of another branch of government before it to justify their decisions. She said one branch of government did not have the right to routinely interfere with another in that way. Aren't members of the Executive Branch called before the Legislative routinely for this very purpose? When former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired several federal attorneys several members of Congress asserted that since he had been confirmed and appointed by them, they had the right to call him to explain for his decisions? For the last Several months Congress has investigated the Justice department's Operation Fast and Furious. The current Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been interrogated about his actions? No one on either side of the aisle has called it "an abuse of power" for the Legislative Branch to call cabinet members, whom they confirmed to the office, to explain their decisions." Why is it any more unreasonable to question members of the judiciary when they abuse their power? Was it the intent of the founders to make the only remedy Congress had for changing judicial decision legislation or the long arduous task of Amending the Constitution?
The Federalist Papers were polemics written to explain and defend the Constitution when the founders were seeking to get it ratified and adopted by the states. They explain the intents of the founders. Let's see what it says about the separation of powers:
No 47 states that the three branches are to have an interdependent relationship "... the legislative, executive and judiciary department are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other... where the WHOLE power of another department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE POWER of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted."
When the Executive Branch abuses its power to use executive order or regulation to enforce its will on the people or the legislature by decree The other branches are right in calling the abusive member to account. Congress and the courts failed to act when President Roosevelt interred thousands of Americans because of race? Recently when the Supreme Court ruled that the power of eminent domain extended to the power to tax (which in affect abrogates the 10th have been inappropriate for the Judiciary committee, who confirms judicial nominations, to ask Justice Souter, who wrote the majority opinion, how was his decision not a vacating of the 10th Amendment, and an abuse of power? If an Executive had done it by executive Order the legislature would have subpenaed him and if necessary demanded Constitutional accountability. Why are members of the judiciary exempt from accountability to the people or their representatives?
Document number 47 makes the intention of the founding fathers clear: "We must perceive the legislative, executive and judicial branches are by no means separate and distinct from each other." Speaking of the judiciary it says, "The magistrate... cannot himself make law, though he can put a negative on law.. Judges can exercise "no executive authority... nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with legislative country. ... There is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct."
So the separation of powers is not a solid wall. It becomes clear that when judiciary denies the unborn their protection due under the 14th Amendment with out due process of law, it has argued beyond its jurisdiction. When the court so strongly asserts the prohibition of the Congress to establish a religion, that it denies the people or the States their free exercise of it, through a false rubric of "separation of church and state," it has rewritten the Constitution. When the court tells a municipality it can take my house to allow a developer to build a mall simply for the purpose of increasing revenue,how has it acted any differently then Roosevelt did toward Japanese Americans. If the Courts attempts to deny people the right of self defense and advocacy though possession of weapons it will have vacated the second Amendment for a political agenda. If the Court were to rewrite the definition of marriage and family and assert a federal right to homosexual marriage, it would usurp the authority of the States. When the court denies the states the rights to regulate residency denying their police the right to determine citizenship of people using vehicle they regulate on roads they build, they have usurped the authority of the states and the executive to enforce the law. Why should they not be held accountable by the other branches for their usurpation.
Let's be clear, according to article III of the Constitution the jurisdiction of the Court is limited. The Congress determines the jurisdiction, of the courts, it determines the make up of the court. It confirms justices. Why is it anymore unreasonable for the Congress to question and remedy judicial abuses than it is for them to question and remedy executive abuses? In the famous case of Richard Nixon V. the United States the court unanimously asserted that the President is not above the law. But is the court? This was an appropriate realignment of one branch of government by another? But who asserts that the Court is not above the Law when it when it tells a state how and when its police forces can be required to verify citizenry of people driving vehicles they register on roads they build? Who asserts when court is above the Law when it intervenes in the Commander and Chiefs authority to prosecute a war by telling the military how to adjudicate penalties to combatants.
In the last Century the US judiciary has become the superior of the Three Branches, Gingrich is right when he asserts that this is a perversion of our system. His understanding of the separation of powers is profoundly accurate. And his view that strong steps have to be taken to "balance" the branches of government authority shows a clear understanding of not only how our country has gotten to where it is, but how it needs to get back." We simply do not have the time no is it necessary to go through the process of Amending the Constitution or even passing legislation every time a judge over extends.
Many of us who support Gingrich for President believe that government influence has become so pervasive in our lives that individual liberty is threatened, and that the prosperity of all people afforded by capitalism is waning. Name me an area of radical social change in the last fifty years that has not been accomplished through the judiciary sometimes in direct conflict to the executive, legislative or vote of the citizenry. Tell me why do we have to accept oligarchy. We need an executive who will stand against judicial tyranny and a legislature that will stand with him. We need Newt Gingrich in 2012.
The current debate centers over what the founding fathers intended: did they intend for the Judiciary to be the final say in our government? I have been taught that through the secular liberal American education system that our government consists of three branches the legislative, which writes, the law, the executive, which enforces the law and the judiciary which interprets it. Further the judiciary is appointed by the executive, so the argument goes, and confirmed, by the legislative branch for life terms so they can be "non-political." If they don't have to be accountable to the people to the political bosses they become the all knowing, all wise arbiter of liberty.
What has evolved from this view of government is a powerful left wing movement that advances it's causes judicially and denies the people their liberty and has transformed our government to an olgarchy. What I mean is that when you think of most of the radical social changes that has shaped this country over the last 30-years many have been forced on us by the courts. The secularization of our schools and governments has been accomplished, judicially. The control over who serves in the military and how they prosecute their enemies has been taken over by the courts. The destruction of the American family, and the replacement of it with all kinds of "alternative lifestyles," has been advance judicially. Most of these decision have been at odds with the people and their elected representatives? It is accurate to say that the court has been used to advance a liberal agenda against the will of the people. How can anyone call this "non-political?"
The court has become a political tool of the left. For many years the democratic party was dominant in politics. As a result most of the judges on the federal bench are democratic appointees with a liberal viewpoint. As liberal causes increasingly fail legislatively or at the ballot box their supporters turn to judges who owe them for their offices and power. When the people and the legislature don't give liberals what the want they call in their chips with the judiciary. (This is not an opinion. This is history) Recent rulings have been pay back to the power brokers that got judges where they are rather than a defense of the Constitution. Anyone who thinks putting on a black robe makes one above politics and human human nature understands neither. Gingrich is right when he says that if a conservative view of society is going to have influence in culture the judiciary must be realigned.
Is his suggestion of holding judges accountable to Congress for radical decisions and even closing courts or impeaching justices a matter of solving one abuse with another, or are the current remedy's insufficient? Recently I heard a legal commentator state that the problem with Gingrich's view is that Congress did not have the right to call members of another branch of government before it to justify their decisions. She said one branch of government did not have the right to routinely interfere with another in that way. Aren't members of the Executive Branch called before the Legislative routinely for this very purpose? When former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired several federal attorneys several members of Congress asserted that since he had been confirmed and appointed by them, they had the right to call him to explain for his decisions? For the last Several months Congress has investigated the Justice department's Operation Fast and Furious. The current Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been interrogated about his actions? No one on either side of the aisle has called it "an abuse of power" for the Legislative Branch to call cabinet members, whom they confirmed to the office, to explain their decisions." Why is it any more unreasonable to question members of the judiciary when they abuse their power? Was it the intent of the founders to make the only remedy Congress had for changing judicial decision legislation or the long arduous task of Amending the Constitution?
The Federalist Papers were polemics written to explain and defend the Constitution when the founders were seeking to get it ratified and adopted by the states. They explain the intents of the founders. Let's see what it says about the separation of powers:
No 47 states that the three branches are to have an interdependent relationship "... the legislative, executive and judiciary department are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other... where the WHOLE power of another department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE POWER of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted."
When the Executive Branch abuses its power to use executive order or regulation to enforce its will on the people or the legislature by decree The other branches are right in calling the abusive member to account. Congress and the courts failed to act when President Roosevelt interred thousands of Americans because of race? Recently when the Supreme Court ruled that the power of eminent domain extended to the power to tax (which in affect abrogates the 10th have been inappropriate for the Judiciary committee, who confirms judicial nominations, to ask Justice Souter, who wrote the majority opinion, how was his decision not a vacating of the 10th Amendment, and an abuse of power? If an Executive had done it by executive Order the legislature would have subpenaed him and if necessary demanded Constitutional accountability. Why are members of the judiciary exempt from accountability to the people or their representatives?
Document number 47 makes the intention of the founding fathers clear: "We must perceive the legislative, executive and judicial branches are by no means separate and distinct from each other." Speaking of the judiciary it says, "The magistrate... cannot himself make law, though he can put a negative on law.. Judges can exercise "no executive authority... nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with legislative country. ... There is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct."
So the separation of powers is not a solid wall. It becomes clear that when judiciary denies the unborn their protection due under the 14th Amendment with out due process of law, it has argued beyond its jurisdiction. When the court so strongly asserts the prohibition of the Congress to establish a religion, that it denies the people or the States their free exercise of it, through a false rubric of "separation of church and state," it has rewritten the Constitution. When the court tells a municipality it can take my house to allow a developer to build a mall simply for the purpose of increasing revenue,how has it acted any differently then Roosevelt did toward Japanese Americans. If the Courts attempts to deny people the right of self defense and advocacy though possession of weapons it will have vacated the second Amendment for a political agenda. If the Court were to rewrite the definition of marriage and family and assert a federal right to homosexual marriage, it would usurp the authority of the States. When the court denies the states the rights to regulate residency denying their police the right to determine citizenship of people using vehicle they regulate on roads they build, they have usurped the authority of the states and the executive to enforce the law. Why should they not be held accountable by the other branches for their usurpation.
Let's be clear, according to article III of the Constitution the jurisdiction of the Court is limited. The Congress determines the jurisdiction, of the courts, it determines the make up of the court. It confirms justices. Why is it anymore unreasonable for the Congress to question and remedy judicial abuses than it is for them to question and remedy executive abuses? In the famous case of Richard Nixon V. the United States the court unanimously asserted that the President is not above the law. But is the court? This was an appropriate realignment of one branch of government by another? But who asserts that the Court is not above the Law when it when it tells a state how and when its police forces can be required to verify citizenry of people driving vehicles they register on roads they build? Who asserts when court is above the Law when it intervenes in the Commander and Chiefs authority to prosecute a war by telling the military how to adjudicate penalties to combatants.
In the last Century the US judiciary has become the superior of the Three Branches, Gingrich is right when he asserts that this is a perversion of our system. His understanding of the separation of powers is profoundly accurate. And his view that strong steps have to be taken to "balance" the branches of government authority shows a clear understanding of not only how our country has gotten to where it is, but how it needs to get back." We simply do not have the time no is it necessary to go through the process of Amending the Constitution or even passing legislation every time a judge over extends.
Many of us who support Gingrich for President believe that government influence has become so pervasive in our lives that individual liberty is threatened, and that the prosperity of all people afforded by capitalism is waning. Name me an area of radical social change in the last fifty years that has not been accomplished through the judiciary sometimes in direct conflict to the executive, legislative or vote of the citizenry. Tell me why do we have to accept oligarchy. We need an executive who will stand against judicial tyranny and a legislature that will stand with him. We need Newt Gingrich in 2012.
Comments
Post a Comment