Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[JakeStarkey]

I love it when the butthurt flows through the CeCelie 1200, and she spouts stupidities. Embrace it girl, because you are one of the more inane far righty posters here on the thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Congressional oversight is a primary function of Congress and subpoenaing witnesses to testify to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation is within Congress' powers. See,Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927)


Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived at (1), in compliance with the fundamental rules of constitutional law; and (2), how it is in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution?


Is it not in our best interests to agree to follow the fundamental rules of constitutional law and enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?


JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

The US elite will NEVER go along with holding federal judges accountable for bad decisions since this is one of their well practiced methods for shoving things onto the public that the public does not want.

Just like the Federal Reserve that boils down to the government outsourcing its monetary policy to agroup of private banks, the idea that the judicial branch, rather than the congressional branch of our federal government is supposed to be the weakest and most subordinate.

But since it is more useful for the elite to get their way, it will be suicide for a candidate to propose significant curtailment of the power of either one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

Oh, so like when the Supreme Court decided a corporation was a person?

Yes, and those judges should have been impeached immediately and their decision reversed.

The same goes for the New London decision.

 

[johnwk]

The US elite will NEVER go along with holding federal judges accountable for bad decisions since this is one of their well practiced methods for shoving things onto the public that the public does not want.

Just like the Federal Reserve that boils down to the government outsourcing its monetary policy to a group of private banks, the idea that the judicial branch, rather than the congressional branch of our federal government is supposed to be the weakest and most subordinate.

But since it is more useful for the elite to get their way, it will be suicide for a candidate to propose significant curtailment of the power of either one.

I agree with you about the federal reserve. In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, which unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress to regulate the value of our nation’s currency and placed that power in the hands of private banks. But what few people realize is the very intention of the Act was to create a money monopoly for the private banks, and this was done by making Federal Reserve Notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.


For those who are not familiar with our founder’s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only <u>cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. </u>

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any &#8220;note&#8221; a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.




As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt!

To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled: A Caveat Against Injustice &#8230; An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.


And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face &#8220;THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE&#8220;? Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?


JWK


"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

 

[The T]

The US elite will NEVER go along with holding federal judges accountable for bad decisions since this is one of their well practiced methods for shoving things onto the public that the public does not want.

Just like the Federal Reserve that boils down to the government outsourcing its monetary policy to a group of private banks, the idea that the judicial branch, rather than the congressional branch of our federal government is supposed to be the weakest and most subordinate.

But since it is more useful for the elite to get their way, it will be suicide for a candidate to propose significant curtailment of the power of either one.

I agree with you about the federal reserve. In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, which unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress to regulate the value of our nation’s currency and placed that power in the hands of private banks, what few people realize is the very intention of the Act was created a money monopoly for the private banks, and this was done by making Federal Reserve Notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.


For those who are not familiar with our founder’s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only <u>cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. </u>

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any “note” a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.




As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt!

To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled: A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.


And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“? Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?


JWK


"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

Precisely. ABOLISH IT. Return it to original intent.

 

[pegwinn]

Precisely. ABOLISH IT. Return it to original intent.

Abolishing it is great.
Intent is indefinable better to simply read and apply the literal word.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, fools, we are not returning to 1791 or before.

Not ever going to happen.

 

[The T]

No, fools, we are not returning to 1791 or before.

Not ever going to happen.

Absolutely. WE will just capuitulate and go with whatever the electeds tell us...

FUCKING IDIOT

 

[JakeStarkey]

You just described yourself perfectly, T.

You are in a minescule itty bitty l'il bit of wacko America, and we will leave you there.

 

[johnwk]

No, fools, we are not returning to 1791 or before.

Not ever going to happen.

You have no problem with a private banking institution&#8217;s Notes being made a &#8220;LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE&#8220; in defiance of our Constitution?

How about the Progressives occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and federal taxes laid and collected from profits, gains, and other incomes. Are you comfortable with that too?

JWK

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. James Madison

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of us are not waiting for any such thing because we already read the thread. If you go back and read my posts you will see specific references to Congress impeaching judges for no other reason than they handed down the wrong decision. Roosevelt was so pissed at the Supreme Court shooting down his plans to save the world he packed the court in order to get his New Deal legislation through. I am pretty sure you are one of the statist idiots that point to that as a perfect example of how the government is supposed to work, so you should have no problem with Newt doing essentially the same thing.

By the way, I loved the joke in your post about staying on point and answering clearly, rdean does it better though.

Roosevelt never packed the court.

He sure as hell tried. Part of a pattern of dictatorial behavior by the most dangerous President in US history.

And the idea of the legislative branch trying to impeach SCOTUS justices because they don't agree with their decisions ISN"T 'dictatorial'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of us are not waiting for any such thing because we already read the thread. If you go back and read my posts you will see specific references to Congress impeaching judges for no other reason than they handed down the wrong decision. Roosevelt was so pissed at the Supreme Court shooting down his plans to save the world he packed the court in order to get his New Deal legislation through. I am pretty sure you are one of the statist idiots that point to that as a perfect example of how the government is supposed to work, so you should have no problem with Newt doing essentially the same thing.

By the way, I loved the joke in your post about staying on point and answering clearly, rdean does it better though.

Roosevelt never packed the court.

I bet you think Obama didn't raise the deficit, don't you?



Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since that bill never passed you simply proved my point that Roosevelt never packed the Court.

You're an idiot.

 

[johnwk]

Roosevelt never packed the court.

He sure as hell tried. Part of a pattern of dictatorial behavior by the most dangerous President in US history.

And the idea of the legislative branch trying to impeach SCOTUS justices because they don't agree with their decisions ISN"T 'dictatorial'?

I believe you are intentionally exaggerating what is being advocated and then arguing against your own exaggeration!

I doubt if anyone who supports our constitutional system is advocating an impeachment of a Justice because they don&#8217;t agree with his/her decision. But when a Justice arrives at their opinion by ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and ignores the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and gives an opinion which is not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution as per the Kelo decision, that kind of ruling could reasonably be considered as bad behavior and an impeachable offense.


Keep in mind what our Constitution stipulates!

(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Why do your object to giving an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish a questionable opinion is in harmony with the fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, which is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?


JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to &#8220;interpret&#8221; the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition. Until then, just admit I am right, and that judges have actually been impeached over nothing more than politics, and that the courts have ruled that since impeachment is a power granted to Congress exclusively, it is unreviewable by them.

Or you could slink away with your tail between your legs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Actually federal judges render opinions.
In recent history some opinions have been so outrageous, they disturb the boundaries of common sense.
Gingrich is correct in that the courts have become too powerful.
The US Constitution expresses 'checks and balances'...
That means no one branch of the federal government may be more powerful that another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, fools, we are not returning to 1791 or before. Not ever going to happen.

You have no problem with a private banking institution’s Notes being made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“ in defiance of our Constitution? How about the Progressives occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and federal taxes laid and collected from profits, gains, and other incomes. Are you comfortable with that too? JWK

One of the great bits about America is that you are entitled to your incorrect narrative of American history that his held by an Infinitesimally small group of people.

And if you are able to get enough to re-amend the Constitution, all the more power to you.

But . . . you won't, and you would still be incorrect.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

A) Newt is an idiot, as you have pointed out, Judges are not supposed to consider popular opinion.

B) The 9th Circuit is too big. And needs to be split

 

[JakeStarkey]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

Impeachment is for misconduct in office, not issuing unpopular opinions.

That being said, of course, Congress is the ultimate judge of what constitutes misconduct in office.

There are numerous powers in the Constitution that the Founders did not mean to be exercised absolutely. One example is the veto power. If the President vetoed literally every bill he disagreed with, Congress would need a 2/3 majority to do anything about half the time. Another is expulsion. It takes 2/3 of a house to expel its members, but Congress did not intend, for example, for a party that wins 2/3 of a House to go ahead and just expel any member not in its party for the heck of it. Yet - the President in the former example and a house of Congress in the latter example have the Constitutional authority to do these things.