Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[JakeStarkey]

However, James, consider Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26.

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

However, James, consider Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26.

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

Where in the text does it give anybody a right?

If you don't know what "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or Any" means-that's on you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And where does the word "privacy" appear in our federal Constitution? I think you are relying upon a misrepresentation of our Constitution by the Court!


JWK

"Privacy" rights are right there with the "Separation of Church and State"....
Neither exist.

Apparently, you seem to be of the ill-begotten belief Rights are only those that are enumerated.

You would be wrong.

Not a belief..These are facts.
You don't get to read what you like into the US Constitution. It means precisely what is written.
You may think you can bend and twist the language of the Constitution to get to go where you wish it to, but that does not make your belief in what it says, factual.
Now, until you or anyone else can find in the Constitution "separation of church and state" or "right to privacy" have at it.
Until then, those 'rights' do not exist.

 

[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.

So you want a free people to be stuck with the obsolete opinions of 200 years ago, when to think that the King was not appointed by God was considered Far Left?

You must have been one of Obama's constitutional "students"..
He believes as you do, the US Constitution is a roadblock to the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda
hey sunshine....when armed warrantless armed federal thugs come bashing through your door demanding all of your personal records, you come talk to us about how the Constitution is "obsolete opinions of 200 years ago"....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

The Supreme Court has judicial authority - that means they and the lessor courts settle all legal disputes. A dispute on how to interpret the law - whether it be statute or the Constitution itself, obviously is covered by that authority.

 

[paperview]

"Privacy" rights are right there with the "Separation of Church and State"....
Neither exist.

Apparently, you seem to be of the ill-begotten belief Rights are only those that are enumerated.

You would be wrong.

Not a belief..These are facts.
You don't get to read what you like into the US Constitution. It means precisely what is written.
You may think you can bend and twist the language of the Constitution to get to go where you wish it to, but that does not make your belief in what it says, factual.
Now, until you or anyone else can find in the Constitution "separation of church and state" or "right to privacy" have at it.
Until then, those 'rights' do not exist.

I suggest you look up the 9th Amendment.

 

[paperview]

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

Where in the text does it give anybody a right?

If you don't know what "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or Any" means-that's on you.

Probably in this part: ""The right of citizens..."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And where does the word "privacy" appear in our federal Constitution? I think you are relying upon a misrepresentation of our Constitution by the Court!


JWK

"Privacy" rights are right there with the "Separation of Church and State"....
Neither exist.

Apparently, you seem to be of the ill-begotten belief Rights are only those that are enumerated.

You would be wrong.

Just like it says in the Bill of Rights. (9th Amendment)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However, James, consider Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26.

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

No it isn't, it is a restriction on the states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

States don't have the right to take away rights protected by the Constitution. Privacy is a well established right in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am sorry, I was assuming you were talking from a medical standpoint since the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all. Forgive me for presuming I was talking to someone who is intelligent. I will not make that mistake again.

Your two statements contradict each other, first you say in a strict interpretation there is always a difference between medical procedures, and then you say the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all.

Which is it, asshole?

Like I said, I presumed I was talking to an intelligent person. Intelligent people understand that, since the constitution does not discuss medical procedures, any discussion of interpreting them must be referring to something else, like, as a wild example, medical textbooks. A strict interpretation of medical textbooks would tell me that all medical procedures are different.

The Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a person so your point about medical procedures being 'different' is irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

Weren't most of the founders still around at the time of Marbury v. Madison? If it was so outside their 'intent', why didn't they remedy it via amendment at the time?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Apparently, you seem to be of the ill-begotten belief Rights are only those that are enumerated.

You would be wrong.

Not a belief..These are facts.
You don't get to read what you like into the US Constitution. It means precisely what is written.
You may think you can bend and twist the language of the Constitution to get to go where you wish it to, but that does not make your belief in what it says, factual.
Now, until you or anyone else can find in the Constitution "separation of church and state" or "right to privacy" have at it.
Until then, those 'rights' do not exist.

I suggest you look up the 9th Amendment.

And this what to do with what?
That because the Ninth states....."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", does not imply one can simply make up rights as they see fit.
Remember, the US Constitution was written to limit the power of government. That cuts both ways. While the government cannot legally deny rights, it cannot create them either.
Because in the majority opinion in "Roe", the Court did exactly that. The Court created a right that did not exist. Therefore the Court's majority decision would not if challenged, pass Constitutional muster. Of course that is my opinion. And the opinion of others much farther up the flag pole.
At this point rather than argue the issue, I will defer to much more learned legal minds.
Adieu.
So please, let's return from the parallel universe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

Chicago's strict anti-gun law was stricken just last year.
Washington, DC's is coming under intense scrutiny as well.
Gingrich's idea in no way removes the right or duty of judges to rule on cases.
This idea places a lid on judges. To make them consider their decisions carefully. A reminder to judges to rule on cases without passion or prejudice. To uphold the law as it is written.
The woman with the scales has on a blindfold for a reason. Judges need to remember that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

States don't have the right to take away rights protected by the Constitution. Privacy is a well established right in the Constitution.

States do not have rights. States do, however, have the power to infringe tights because the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does not mean states cannot restrict rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your two statements contradict each other, first you say in a strict interpretation there is always a difference between medical procedures, and then you say the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all.

Which is it, asshole?

Like I said, I presumed I was talking to an intelligent person. Intelligent people understand that, since the constitution does not discuss medical procedures, any discussion of interpreting them must be referring to something else, like, as a wild example, medical textbooks. A strict interpretation of medical textbooks would tell me that all medical procedures are different.

The Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a person so your point about medical procedures being 'different' is irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of intelligence. Why do you keep mentioning the constitution when we are talking about medical procedures?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The states cannot pass laws that violate a person's constitutionally protected right of privacy.

Getting an abortion is a privacy right. Therefore Roe v Wade was correct, although technically it should have covered all abortions.

Umm...There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. If there is, you go ahead and find it then post it.
The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.



AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS erred in ruling for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade. The opinion of the majority usurped the State's rights clause of the 10th Amendment.
Roe will be overturned. That is an eventuality.
And now we have your childish and insulting nonsense. JWK does his homework, posts facts and you fire back with insults because you have no rebuttal.
THAT is a fail.
BTW I am pro choice....Excluding using abortion for birth control.
I oppose ANY taxpayer funded abortion.

States don't have the right to take away rights protected by the Constitution. Privacy is a well established right in the Constitution.

Once again, you buy into the false notion that a right to privacy actually exists.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So you want a free people to be stuck with the obsolete opinions of 200 years ago, when to think that the King was not appointed by God was considered Far Left?

Would it be at all possible for a free people to actually be FREE, as in having any "obsolete opinions" - by which I assume you mean those pesky things we call "laws" - changed by the orderly, official process in place for that purpose, rather than having them imposed on us willy-nilly at the whim of politicians and judges on a power trip? Is that doable for you, or is that not "modern" enough to suit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wont go through all of them section by section, but if you read the language it's clear. Take the 15th for example (used it because it's short):

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

It restricts the U.S. or any State from denying people to vote for race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

No it isn't, it is a restriction on the states.

The language does not support your conclusiion.