Gingrich's plan for America

[TheMercenary]

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>

How is this different from what any president has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority? Instead of the SCOTUS insert Congress. Obama, Bush, and Clinton have all done it.

[BigV]

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>

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How is this different from what any president has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority? Instead of the SCOTUS insert Congress. Obama, Bush, and Clinton have all done it.

I'll try to answer your two questions here. First question, "what's wrong with this picture?"

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.

The Executive branch can and does have opinions. But the definition of our government is that it **IS** the Judicial branch that decides, that defines what is constitutional or not. The Executive doesn't get to say what is "fundamentally unconsistutional". They can believe it and argue it and lobby for it, but where with the bring to bear these vague "any appropriate executive branch powers"? If they have an argument that something is not constitutional, literally against the law of the land, where does that argument get decided? In court, where judges judge.

That's what's wrong with this picture. The Executive doesn't also get to be the Judge/Judiciary.

Your second question, "how is this different from what any President has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority?" Well, it is completely different in that Congress is not the Court. The office of the President has used their interpretation of the laws made by the Congress, sometimes in harmony with Congress, sometimes in opposition to Congress, sure. You're right this happens. But what is NOT happening is the Executive deciding what is constitutional and what is not. That power is reserved for the Judiciary.

It may be the case that Congress makes a law, the President believes the law is wrong and acts at cross purposes to that law. That happens, true. But the Court doesn't reach out and pick sides, it waits, per our law, to have the two opposing sides to bring their arguments to the Court and duke it out there. Then, the right position will prevail, by definition. The Courts decide what is constitutional. It settles the disagreement between two sides.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Perspective people. These are campaign promises, they don't mean shit to the candidates, why should they to you?

Say Newt, through some alien mind control or something, got elected President. The wackos say, Newt, you promised x, y & z! To which Newt responds, I wanted to but the others here in DC won't let me... now if you'll excuse me...

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Perspective people. These are campaign promises, they don't mean shit to the candidates, why should they to you?

Say Newt, through some alien mind control or something, got elected President. The wackos say, Newt, you promised x, y & z! To which Newt responds, I wanted to but the others here in DC won't let me... now if you'll excuse me...

Promising to complete the process of destroying checks and balances seems a bit extreme even to appeal to the Volkgeist spirit of the base. Not much has changed from Bush to Obama in terms of Constitutional power usurpation. Consolidation of power in the Executive continues unhindered. Newt's promise is eminently doable because the Supremes have no enforcement power.