Newtzi Party Führer says ignore the judiciary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
In a 28-page position paper entitled, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," GingriNch argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.


"Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers," he argues.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...urts-dangerous/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1geRveY8P
 
no surprise legion espouses godwin's law

there is nothing even remotely nazi about gingrich's theory. apparently legion missed the civics lecture about how our government is one of checks and balances.
 
\(())/ said:
In a 28-page position paper entitled, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," GingriNch argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.


"Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers," he argues.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...urts-dangerous/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1geRveY8P
Click to expand...

Nice thread title that's a lie. Your first sentence that quotes Gingrich is factually correct on Gingrich's part.

Unless you're one of those elitists that believes that one branch of the government cannot be checked by the others. On paper, no one branch of government cannot be checked the other two. In reality, good luck.

Fact is, this is just a lame attempt by you to slam Gingrich.
 
Newtzi's own words:

As the head of the executive branch, a President could command all executive branch agencies in certain circumstances to limit the application of a Supreme Court decision to only the litigants involved and otherwise ignore it as a rule of general application.

​
Ignoring a Judicial Decision

​
In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a Court decision. One can imagine such a circumstance when Courts attempt to usurp the foreign policy powers of the executive and legislative branches and such usurpation compromises the national security of the United States and threatens the safety of Americans.

For example, if the Congress were to enact a statute on military commissions that explicitly limited federal court jurisdiction, then the President would be warranted in ignoring any judicial decision or action that violated the limitation on jurisdiction.

It is proper to do so because the Congress that enacted the law presumptively believed it was constitutional. The President who signed it (assuming no veto) thought it was constitutional and the President who ignores the court decision thought it was constitutional.

Thus, it is two branches against one, in an area where the Constitution empowers the executive and legislative branches (not the judicial branch), and in a case in which the judicial branch is violating constitutional limitations on its authority.


http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf​
 
\(())/ said:
Newtzi's own words:

As the head of the executive branch, a President could command all executive branch agencies in certain circumstances to limit the application of a Supreme Court decision to only the litigants involved and otherwise ignore it as a rule of general application.

​
Ignoring a Judicial Decision

​
In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a Court decision. One can imagine such a circumstance when Courts attempt to usurp the foreign policy powers of the executive and legislative branches and such usurpation compromises the national security of the United States and threatens the safety of Americans.

For example, if the Congress were to enact a statute on military commissions that explicitly limited federal court jurisdiction, then the President would be warranted in ignoring any judicial decision or action that violated the limitation on jurisdiction.

It is proper to do so because the Congress that enacted the law presumptively believed it was constitutional. The President who signed it (assuming no veto) thought it was constitutional and the President who ignores the court decision thought it was constitutional.

Thus, it is two branches against one, in an area where the Constitution empowers the executive and legislative branches (not the judicial branch), and in a case in which the judicial branch is violating constitutional limitations on its authority.


http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf​
Click to expand...

I see where he's getting that now and it's almost ironically laughable, since the supreme court gave him that line that laws enacted by congress are presumptively constitutional.
 
\(())/ said:
Newtzi's own words:

As the head of the executive branch, a President could command all executive branch agencies in certain circumstances to limit the application of a Supreme Court decision to only the litigants involved and otherwise ignore it as a rule of general application.

​
Ignoring a Judicial Decision

​
In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a Court decision. One can imagine such a circumstance when Courts attempt to usurp the foreign policy powers of the executive and legislative branches and such usurpation compromises the national security of the United States and threatens the safety of Americans.

For example, if the Congress were to enact a statute on military commissions that explicitly limited federal court jurisdiction, then the President would be warranted in ignoring any judicial decision or action that violated the limitation on jurisdiction.

It is proper to do so because the Congress that enacted the law presumptively believed it was constitutional. The President who signed it (assuming no veto) thought it was constitutional and the President who ignores the court decision thought it was constitutional.

Thus, it is two branches against one, in an area where the Constitution empowers the executive and legislative branches (not the judicial branch), and in a case in which the judicial branch is violating constitutional limitations on its authority.


http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf​
Click to expand...

Guess my point, and his, zoomed right over, huh? You'd prefer to play semantics and screw around with the way he said it. Nice. Welcome to the Third World our current President and the sheep that follow him are ushering us into. I got plenty of ammo. Y'all carry on.
 
Gunny said:
Nice thread title that's a lie. Your first sentence that quotes Gingrich is factually correct on Gingrich's part.

Unless you're one of those elitists that believes that one branch of the government cannot be checked by the others. On paper, no one branch of government cannot be checked the other two. In reality, good luck.

Fact is, this is just a lame attempt by you to slam Gingrich.
Click to expand...

obama has repeatedly tried to lessen the influence and power of the judicial branch....but you'll never hear legion troll crying about that

only when the person is a republican is it a bad thing
 
Eye said:
obama has repeatedly tried to lessen the influence and power of the judicial branch....but you'll never hear legion troll crying about that

only when the person is a republican is it a bad thing
Click to expand...

He has ... quantified by the fact that if that f*ck is re-elected, he gets to appoint two of the positions coming due next term. A point the leftist media and the current administration has kept mum about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top