Newt Gingrich Takes Shots at the Media and Judiciary Branch

The act didn't amend it or define it. When judicial review was first used, it was originally justified partially based upon the unconstitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1789. However, it was also justified on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause. After reviewing the origins of judicial review, it should also be noted that the right to interpret the Constitution was justified under Article III, Section II, Clause II. The right of the Supreme Court to deal with matters involving Ministers, Consuls, or Ambassadors gives them original jurisdiction. The right of the Supreme Court to deal with all other matters provides them appellate jurisdiction.

 

Your structure of government being the operative words there. Not the American structure of government. He might be the purest example of that.

 

No, that clause only specifies when SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and when it has appellate jurisdiction. More importantly, though, every person under a constitutional oath has not just the right but the obligation to interpret the Constitution insofar as it impinges on his or her responsibilities, and thus the obligation to disregard any federal statute, executive order, court ruling or other instrument which runs afoul of it.

 

Look at the post more closely. I used the phrase "our structure of government", not "your structure of government."

 

No, it certainly doesn't say that. You are taking the view that the constitution is the same as statute law. Few people agree with that.

 

with all respect , diplomat Newt may be a GOP candidate , but he'll never be POTUS material ... but , that's just my opinion ...

If you like him , that's ok by me ... he is a smart guy ..

 

The necessary and proper clause has no relation to the judiciary. It is an enumerated power of the legislature.

 

The Constitution does not confer upon the Supreme Court the authority to "interpret", so your point is moot.

 

Of course not. Where does the Constitution say anything about "interpretation" of anything? The judiciary is given jurisdiction, not over the Constitution, but over the cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court was supposed to enforce the Constitution in cases of law and equity. The Founders made the mistake of thinking that the Supreme Court would adhere to the Constitution.

Of course. If the legislature passes a law that criminalizes the ownership of firearms, and an individual sues the government, the Supreme Court must rule in favor of the individual because the Second Amendment is unequivocal.

I admit, that part of the Constitution was very poorly constructed by the Founders. It's terribly ambiguous IF you don't know anything about American history.

 

You think that other forms of media arising to counter the MSM as propaganda wing of the Democrat Party invalidates the charge with which to begin?

The MSM has unquestionably moved beyond bias. They are in cahoots. Outlets such as Fox and the WSJ are literally just reactions to this reality.

 

Jefferson noted that the Court granted itself power to be the final decider. The founders certainly had no intention or desire for this result. After many decades, the Court began to write law from the bench outside of the legislation they were to review, then they began to simply make it up.

Jefferson also noted that all the remedies in the Constitution for dealing with Judicial excess were ineffective. He wrote...

I believe the only way to reintroduce the concept of accountability to the court is to amend the Constitution so as to grant a measure of power back to the people through the states. I believe we need a mechanism that lets a super-majority of state legislatures over ride a decision that is seen by the people as odious.

A super-majority is a big hurdle but it does open the door to accountability.

 

But they have no right to write law from the bench or amend the Constitution...they have no right to change 'Congress shall make no law' into 'Congress can make law'. They have the POWER today to do both but they have no right.

 

excellent idea for a check and balance on Washington DC

 

I think my criticism towards Newt's comments clearly indicates that I will never support him.

 

It's an interesting proposal. However, I see some flaws in it. One flaw is designating proper jurisdiction to the states. On cases involving Consuls, Ambassadors, and Ministers, all states would have the jurisdiction to override the case. On cases involving a state or states, only the state government(s) involved should have jurisdiction. There's a whole can of worms that is opened if you adopt such an amendment.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of our system, but I can't say I'd want Newt's system either.

 

I support the 2A but don't call it unequivocal. It's extremely vague and nobody knows what it means. But i'd rather have congress or the state legislatures interpret it than the unelected geezers on the SC.

 

I like that. Or we could pass an amendment to elect the SC justices to say 6 year terms.

 

Speak for yourself.

And if there are any constitutional provisions about which that can be fairly said, they need to be amended, because having a provision which can be interpreted in 5 different ways by 5 honest and constitutionally savvy people is entirely acceptable.

 

I like Newt. Hope he's VP.

 

This. Cain and Gingrich are the ones I can see myself voting for, so far.

Cain/Gingrich, or Gingrich/Cain would be alright by me.

 

Amen!

 

Remember, it is an amendment which overrides existing constitutional procedures. You will note I did not produce language, largely because it would require a good bit of thought and debate so as to reduce unintended consequences.

 

Not so sure that is a good idea as it would make precedent and the law as applied very chaotic.

 

I'd suggest SC justices and federal judges (maybe just at the circuit court level) have their performance reviewed by Congress every ten years, and be removed if a supermajority isn't satisfied. Sort of like impeachment, but it wouldn't be at the option of Congress, so the members' constituents would be able to note whether they defended (or didn't vote to remove) bad judges.