Gingrich's plan for America

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by richlevy

<snip>
It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
Full text

And it may be closer than we think with this GOP candidate...

Newt Gingrich's official web site
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution
NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting Item No. 9
of the 21st Century Contract with America:

<snip>This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with
Congress.

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.
<snip>
In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made
decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to
join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.<snip>

.

[Ibby]

THIS terrifies me.
A presidential candidate LITERALLY STATING, outright, that they will declare themselves the sole arbiter of constitutional interpretation, make themselves alone the Decider on the powers of the executive? Literally telling the supreme court that, if they don't agree with his interpretation, that he will reject their constitutional authority?
Do we really need to re-hash Marbury v. Madison?

[Lamplighter]

Sorry, my American History that far back is lacking.
What was the gist of Marbury v. Madison ?

[Ibby]

Marbury v. Madison established judicial review. That's why the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws. Gingrich is basically saying, he doesn't have to respect the idea of judicial review.

[Lamplighter]

OK.
I came upon Gingrich's "Plan for America" several weeks ago, and have been
surprised that Issue # 9 has not received attention in the media, or by Dwellars.

It is extreme and frightening, but fits with some Conservatives' view of the "Universal President".
Was it Nixon or Cheney or who(?) that said something like: "If the President says it's lawful, it is legal."
So they would believe the corollary.

But Gingrich certainly is being explicit.
I don't think he published this just for the enjoyment of the far right.
I suspect that if elected, he could/would claim it as a "mandate".
.

[Griff]

I'd like to assume the American people can be rallied against obvious attacks like this but they let everyone from Truman to Bush slide on aspects of checks and balances. Maybe they want a dictator to restore their national pride... there is a lot of precedent for that as well. Didn't Paul confront Gingrich on this? That may be why the press ignores it.

[Happy Monkey]

In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.

Litigation? Where?

[Ibby]

I don't get it either. Once the supreme court rules, there isn't much room to litigate, is there? Not for a good long while.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Was it Nixon or Cheney or who(?) that said something like: "If the President says it's lawful, it is legal."

That was how Nixon justified Watergate. It was probably a last straw that caused many Nixon extremists to consider backing away from the President. It eventually made possible a vote for his impeachment.

Yes, Cheney also used that reasoning. Justified by 'findings' that said even torture was good and acceptable. Unfortunately, many Americans also agreed, without doubt, with Cheney.

What has changed? Our extremists in government are greater in numbers, power, and gall.

Back during Watergate, this 'Imperial Presidency' is why Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren demanded a unanimous vote against Nixon. He worried that even an 8-1 vote would encourage the military to move against the court on orders from Nixon. Many forget back then how much concern existed for overt challenges to Constitutional law. "Imperial Presidency' was part of a larger fear. The Supreme Court had to consider even (least likely) alternatives such as a military occupation of the Supreme Court. Because Nixon's "Imperial Presidency" said a president's 'findings' were automatic laws.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Back during Watergate, this 'Imperial Presidency' is why
Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren demanded a unanimous vote against Nixon.
He worried that even an 8-1 vote would encourage the military to move against the court on orders from Nixon.

The Warren Court refers to the SCOTUS between 1953 & 1969, when Warren served as Chief Justice which
expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power dramatically.

Warren retired in '69 long before Watergate. In fact he passed away a month before Nixon "resigned."
Warren had nothing to do with "demanding anything relative to Nixon and Watergate.
The only unanimous decisions he demanded were regarding segregation.

His comments on watergate ...

If Nixon is not forced to turn over tapes of his conversations with the ring of men
who were conversing on their violations of the law, then liberty will soon be dead in this nation.
If Nixon gets away with that, then Nixon makes the law as he goes along — not the Congress nor the courts.
The old Court you and I served so long will not be worthy of its traditions if Nixon can twist,
turn and fashion the law as he sees fit.

[ZenGum]

Holy crazy shit, batman.

Gingrich is scary. He's so narcissitic and sociopathic that if he had that kind of power, he would very likely use it.

[BigV]

Yes, Zen, yes. But you left out masterful demagogue. He has terrific charisma and can speak in a tone of voice that seems so reasonable, so logical. The *content* of his remarks is sometimes Way. Out. There. but his words can drip honey as they spill from his lips.

He can't possibly think his ideas can exist in reality. It must be sheer rhetorical smoke.

[regular.joe]

WAAAA!!! I don't like the way the highest court in the land has done their appointed job, you know the one that is supposed to be the last word on weather or not laws are constitutional in the letter or implementation. sooooo.....lets see, how can I change that without changing the whole thing.....ummm.......vote for me!

But just to be sure I checked the Constitution to see what if any powers the Judicial Branch really does have:

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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Executive Branch has these powers:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Wow, I don't see anywhere where the Executive Branch has the power to change the Judicial Branches decisions because it doen's like it. I hope that other Americans can read. But you know, hope in one hand and shit in another.....as we say in my job field...hope is not a method.

[BigV]

ahhh... but the "constitution" you speak of, it is what the "judicial" branch claims to have authority regarding, ergo, ipso facto nutzo, I don't have to do what they say.

[Spexxvet]

Scotus is expected, in the near future, to rule that race cannot be used in accepting college applicants. I wonder how Newt would react if Obama said "fuck you, scotus, 14% of all college students in America must be African American".