Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Newt Gingrich says he'd defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed


UPDATE: Newt ups the stakes against activist Federal Judges, here.

Here is a good White Paper about the issue of Judicial Review, its origins and the Founders intent. 

Newt has declared that he'd simply ignore Supreme Court rulings that he found unconstitutional.  I have no problem with that...

He also suggested the possibility of abolishing some Federal Courts, to be rid of activist judges.  I have no problem with that...

He's a very well-read politician.  He may be the most historically informed candidate on the stage.  He's smart.  I have no problem with that...

He believes in American Empire.  I have a problem with that.

He also believes that you and I do not have the same Right to dismiss the unconstitutional rulings of the Supreme Court as would he as President.  I have a problem with that.

Here is the story.

Kerodin
III

14 comments:

  1. He believes in American Empire. I have a problem with that.

    He also believes that you and I do not have the same Right to dismiss the unconstitutional rulings of the Supreme Court as would he as President. I have a problem with that.

    Yes, Sir.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to question something...

    "Newt has declared that he'd simply ignore Supreme Court rulings that he found unconstitutional. I have no problem with that...

    So here's the problem.

    A president does not, under any circumstances, have the authority under the Constitution to defy the Supreme Court.

    Maybe I missed that article in there somewhere.

    Three separate but equal branches of government.

    Legislative makes bills.
    Executive executes.
    Judicial decides constitutionality, NOT the executive.

    What Newt is proposing -in defying the Supreme court- is as anti-constitutional as anything I've yet seen.

    I have a serious problem with that.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
  3. AP: You are mis-interpreting the Supemacy Clause.

    The Constitution established three separate but equal branches, which means that none is above the other in determining Constitutionality.

    The Supreme Court made a power play in Marbury v. Madison to establish "Judicial Review", which itself (when applied to the other branches) violates the Constitution, as none of the three branches may be "more equal" than another. This was a move by the Enemies of Liberty, very early in the republic, to grab power in the Judiciary, which they had lost during the Constitutional debate.

    Hence, Andrew Jackson's famous: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" (Historians are not sure he ever said those wods, but it sure sounds like Jackson)

    All of this points to the Founder's intent that only moral men ever hold the seats of power, and when that no longer obtained: Vote, Impeach, 2A.

    Kerodin
    III

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, do you agree then that Obama has the authority to openly defy federal court and SCOTUS rulings RE: Obamacare, immigration, and 2A?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe that D and R actions on these matters (and those who have permitted such actions) are unconstitutional and rise to the level of Treason, as I have said countless times.

    I also believe that permitting the Supreme Court to be the sole, ultimate arbitor of such matters sets them above the Constitution, and makes them de facto judicial oligarchs.

    Vote. Impeach. 2A.

    Those are the defenses available to deter Enemies of Liberty.

    Kerodin
    III

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Constitution does make them judicial oligarchs.

    Does the POTUS have, under the Constitution, the specifically delegated authority to decide on judicial matters, and defy the SCOTUS?

    Who decides on judicial matters, according to the letter of the Constitution?

    It IS NOT POTUS.

    Gingrich is wrong.

    Any president defying the rulings of the SCOTUS is breaking the law, the Constitution, and his oath.

    Such a man should be, as you say, impeached.

    If I am wrong, please show me how from the as-written founding documents. You know I am open to learning, but if we say we are Constitutionalists, we must follow it exactly.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
  7. Show me the passage in the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court judicial oligarchs.

    Nowhere does the Constitution recognize the Supreme Court as being higher in authority than either Congress or the Executive.

    The Supreme Court declared that authority on their own in Marbury v. Madison, and as Jefferson noted "...the federalists have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold."

    Here is a simple litmus test: Does a 9-0 ruling in favor of Obamacare make it Constitutional?

    Of course not. Nine judges can not make a turtle a horse any more than they can make Obamacare Constitutional or private ownership of an MP5SD3 unconstitutional.

    Making the Supreme Court the referee does not make the three branches equal, it raises the Supreme Court above the other two branches.

    Constitutional behavior is a matter of respect for the intent of the ideals embodied in the document, it was never intended that any single branch would act as enforcer.

    That is our job.

    The document can not protect us from immoral, amoral or evil men. The document relies upon moral men, as does the republic.

    The notion that the Supreme Court was given ultimate authority in Constitutional matters is a construct of the Enemies of Liberty, regurgitated countless times in 7th grade civics classes for decades.

    It is a fallacy.

    Kerodin
    III

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Show me the passage in the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court judicial oligarchs."

    Ok. Article 3, section 1. I quote:

    "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

    Article 3, section 2. I quote:

    "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

    That the Supreme Court is just that- supreme in judicial matters, oligarchs, if you will, is made very clear in the text by the use of terms such as "one Supreme Court", and "all cases".

    It's very clear.

    There is no power whatsoever, besides that of appointment of justices, granted to the executive branch over judicial matters.

    Presidents do not legislate. They can not usurp or ignore the judicial, just as Congress cannot make appointments, and the Supreme Court cannot pass budgets.

    Separate, but equal.

    Any president ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court is in violation of sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, as well as violating his oath of office.

    The text is crystal clear. There is no room for misunderstanding, if one does not add to the text.

    Can SCOTUS be wrong? Yes. They have been, on many accounts, IMO. Doesn't matter though. They are, in fact, Supreme. That's not my will, but that of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

    That (when they are wrong) is where disobedience and resistance by citizens comes into play. It should NOT originate by the POTUS violating his oath and the crystal clear law.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
  9. A 9-0 ruling in favor of Obamacare does make it constitutional, but only according to the Constitution.

    I may disagree with this decision, but according to the provisions of that document, which is all there is to go by legally, that is law.

    There is no legal recourse, according to the Constitution.

    This is one problem with the Constitution. Although we say it limits government, it does not. It gives all the power in the world to it, as illustrated here. There is no "legal" or "lawful" recourse to a SCOTUS decision, yet it still is final. The government decides on matters that have to do with the scope of its power. Fact.

    "The notion that the Supreme Court was given ultimate authority in Constitutional matters is a construct of the Enemies of Liberty, regurgitated countless times in 7th grade civics classes for decades."

    No, you are wrong. Re-read the quotes above in my previous comment, taken from the text. Read the text, not the 200+ years of wiggling away from it. We must read the text, not what "should be".

    Constitutionalists must, by definition, support the document, not what "should be".

    It is black and white, not a fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AP: Sorry, you are caught in 200+ years of conditioning and misdirection on this one.

    The Federalists lost the debates on many topics, and they ran into the Judiciary and immediately asserted the right of Judicial Review, which is expressly not in the Constitution. Judicial Review is not in the Supremacy Clause or anywhere else in the Constitution.

    Read that clause again, very carefully and without your preconception. It does not, in any single passage, sentence, or series of words, give the Supreme Court any advantage over the Legislative or Executive.

    You rightly mention "Separate but equal" and then immediately claim they are not equal. It simply can not be both.

    The text is clear, that the Supreme Court is granted the power to decide many things, particularly in disputes with entities beneath the Federal level, and certain matters at the Federal level (like treaties), but ultimate Constitutionality of an issue is not one of them, particularly when dealing with the Executive or Legislative branches.

    A 9-0 vote in favor of Obamacare does not make Obamacare Constitutional, any more than a 9-0 vote can nullify 2A.

    Marbury v. Madison came after ratification, and was the first serious usurpation of power against Constitutionalists. It has been downhill since.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is judicial power?

    "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

    What is judicial power?

    Separate means that the three branches each have their own jurisdiction. They are each very unequal in each others' domains.

    Justices cannot introduce bills.

    Congress cannot sign bills into law.

    Presidents, being US citizens, cannot legally disregard the rulings of the court, nor can they, as president, "judiciate", if you will.

    The implications of Newts statement are enormous. And terrifying.

    Everyone must be bound by the SCOTUS, or no one is.

    One way or the other, it doesn't much matter at this point.

    Our government behaves as if there were no Constitution whatsoever.

    It is, at this point, utterly illegitimate, revolutionary, and worthy of respect due only to the amount of firepower at its disposal.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, examine your statement: Presidents, being US citizens, cannot legally disregard the rulings of the court, nor can they, as president, "judiciate", if you will.

    Says who? The Constitution doesn't say that the Executive must obey the Judiciary, anywhere.

    The Supreme Court said it after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody who signed the Constitution on behalf of the States agreed to Judicial Review (the assertion that the Judiciary has final say on Constitutionality).

    Remember your most basic Jefferson: Unconstitutional laws are void.

    You know that any law restricting 2A is unconstitutional, thus void, even though the Supreme Court may disagree.

    This is where the morality of men enters the picture, as does Impeachment, for Judges are only allowed to serve so long as they remain in good behavior.

    It is not good behavior to claim a turtle is a horse from the Bench, nor to claim 2A restrictions are Constitutional.

    They should have been Impeached long ago, but like so many other aspects of the Constitution, we (as a people) have tolerated the mission creep until we are in the mess we have today.

    Newt is challenging the premise that Judges get to tell us what the Constitution means, even if they call a turtle a horse. He is saying that any judge who insists that a turtle is a horse is belligerant (at best) and abusing his power, and is eligible for Impeachment under the good behavior standard.

    I have no problem with that.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  13. What is judicial power? Can you define that?

    None of either of our arguments are valid or meaningful until we understand what "judicial" means.

    What is law? Where does it stem from in the US?

    One could trace all law, all ability to create law, to the constitution.

    It's simple logic.

    "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."


    What does the Constitution mean when it states that all judicial power was given to the SCOTUS?

    I am not concerned with Marbury v Madison.

    I have asked rather straightforward questions, based on the verbatim text of the constitution.

    I don't care about federalist/anti-federalist arguments, or case history. I am trying to start in the document itself.

    Justices are not empowered to pass budgets.

    Congress cannot veto a bill, or nominate justices.

    Presidents cannot decide on judicial matters.

    This is pretty clear. Separation of powers.

    I want an executive branch that is weak. I want a congress that is weak. I want a weak judiciary. If one can ignore the other, that branch is stronger. Not equal. If you are right, the executive is not equal -is superior- to the Supreme Court.

    That's some good ole "Dubya" thinking.

    If one reads the text, and defines the terms used, I think this question is not as complicated as it first may seem.

    The Constitution is not infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AP: My arguments have directly referenced the text. You've asked me to prove a negative. I'm simply asking you to show me the affirmative assertion, in the text, that gives sole dominion of determining Constitutionality to the Judiciary, among the three branches.

    It doesn't exist in the text because that is not what the Framers wanted.

    That power, called Judicial Review, did not come into existence in the text of the Constitution, it came into existence only after the Constitution was ratified, by a power-hungry Supreme Court.

    I am not arguing precedents or case law - you are arguing case law when you speak of Judicial Review, because it was established in a case (Marbury v. Madison) and not in the Constitution.

    When the first premise is flawed, all subsequent argument based on that premise will be flawed, and that is where this discussion exists.

    You can not read "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." of Article III Section II in a vacuum to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution.

    The ultimate arbiter of all things Constitutional is We the People, not the Supreme Court, Legislature or Executive. That is black letter text in the Constitution.

    That is why we have juries, and it was assumed that juries would nullify and refuse to convict in the face of an unconstitutional law.

    You are also missing the Article III Section I requirement that Judges may serve only during times of Good behavior and that Impeachment is the tool that was expected to be used by the Legislature to be rid of Judges who would ...render themselves obnoxious....

    All of those protections were eradicated when the Supreme Court executed the power grab of Judicial Review, for political purposes, about which the Constitution is silent.

    K

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.