Monday, January 30, 2012

Pres. Newt v. U.S. Supreme Court?

Disturbing piece. Is Newt starting to sound like Hugo Chavez?

4 comments:

  1. Gingrich may be correct in his assertion. The question is who is upholding constitutional principles. Obamacare is not of concern as it doesn't measure up to this standard. If a writ of habeas corpus is applicable to enemy participants, the fifth amendment can apply as well with its public safety exception.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hugo Chavez isn't the core personality, it's Elmer Gantry. It's simply breathtaking that a party with so much promise can come up with so few legitimate talents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks 44 & ridg. For better or for worse, the principle of judicial review (which results in U.S. Supreme Court supremacy over the other branches of government) has been accepted in this country since at least 1803 (Marbury v. Madison). If we had waited for a President and a Congress to use their power under the 14th Amendment to desegregate public schools, it might never have happened. It certainly wouldn't have happened as early as 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court did it. Unfortunately, given the wording of the sometimes loose wording in theConstitution, the meaning of constitutional principles is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the Supreme Court has blown it on many occasions (e.g. Dred Scott) but I'd go with the Court over the other branches. When the Court blows it, those who are unhappy can amend the Constitution. Apparently amendments are irrelevant to Newt.

    ReplyDelete