Gingrich and Jefferson...
When Gingrich is right, he's definitely right and RIGHT - he is Conservative.
When Gingrich is left, he is definitely not right and not RIGHT - he is Progressive.
When Gingrich is right, he's definitely ... Right - he is Conservative...
... what does THAT mean.
When Gingrich adduces Jefferson's Judicial Reform Act and the elimination of 18 federal judges and their courts by his executive authority, Gingrich is historically accurate and on solid legal ground.
Solid "legal" ground means that if Jefferson was challenged by the Legislature, the Senate and House, and the Judiciary, SCOTUS, Jefferson would have had to accede to the 2 other "equal" branches.
But, they did not challenge Jefferson.
In fact, if the SCOTUS had challenged Jefferson in the firing of the 18 federal judges and the elimination of their courts but the Legislature after deliberation sided with Jefferson and did not join the SCOTUS, Jefferson's decision would have withstood the 3 equal branches test.
The fact that the Legislature, the Senate AND the House, did nothing, THAT was doing something... Jefferson's decision was allowed to stand.
And, of course, the SCOTUS by their inactivity, also allowed Jefferson's decision to stand.
Now, when Gingrich is left, he definitely is not ... Right - he is Progressive...
... what does THAT mean?
In his comments in the 1st video at the top of this page, on Face the Nation last Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011, Gingrich adduced Franklin D. Roosevelt in his defense of Jefferson's action in eliminating the 18 federal judges and their courts and Gingrich's current point of view about federal judges who legislate from the bench.
... THAT is right... and Conservative.
Gingrich in other interviews and speeches adduces Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and singles out Franklin D. Roosevelt as his "favorite" President.
... THAT is left... and Progressive... a tendency toward Progressive thought.
Newt in his own words -
FDR - ‘GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY’ - ThePartyOfKnow.com -
THAT is left... and Progressive... a tendency toward Progressive thought.
BUT GINGRICH NEVER defends FDR's attempt to pack the SCOTUS and expand it from 9 justices to 15 justices.
... THAT is right... and Conservative... a rejection of Progressive thought.
See the "Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937" - Wikipedia -
>> read more here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
"The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
(frequently called the "court-packing plan")
was a legislative initiative proposed by
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt
to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings
regarding New Deal legislation
that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.
"The central and most controversial provision of the bill
would have granted the President power
to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court,
up to a maximum of six,
for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months."
- - - - - - - -
My perspective as I listed to Newton Gingrich speak, sometimes I agree with Gingrich, sometimes I do not agree with Gingrich.
Sometimes Gingrich takes a Progressive Conservative stance, a Conservative with Progressive tendencies.
Sometimes Gingrich takes a Conservative Progressive stance, a Progressive with Conservative tendencies.
What to do... what to do... what to do...
If Gingrich wins the Republican primary wreath, he will definitely get my vote in the general election against BHObama.
Glenn Beck has some very honest, truthful and valid historical points to make against Gingrich's Progressive tendencies, but, if Beck does not think that Gingrich would not be good for our Republic and will not vote for Gingrich against Obama, well, Beck has another think comin', it seems to me.
I'm going to go with a +1 on this comment. Gingrich is an enigma--I'm still trying to figure him out. Having said that, when he was speaker of the house, I was embracing my full conservative self and liked Gingrich and appreciated his Contract with America. Am I supposed to just forget that because now there are *people* out there decrying Gingrich at every turn?
Thanks for +1, In Cognito.
I'm simply trying to understand both sides of Gingrich's thoughtful statements.
Gingrich said in the video about Progressive FDR being the "greatest" President of the 20th century,
... "I'll give you my biased answer, which always gets me in trouble on the right. ... ."
Well, that means that Gingrich knows BOTH Conservative AND Progressive perspectives about various issues.
If Gingrich wins the POTUS wreath... WATCH OUT America.
What does THAT mean?
Well, good AND bad.
BOTH Conservative AND Progressive ideas will be presented that will definitely "transform" our Republic.
But, having made that point, Gingrich will definitely get my vote for POTUS if he wins the Republican primary vetting process.
Heh. It took a lot of years getting yelled at by my betters for coming up with stupid ideas before I started coming up with less-stupider ideas.
Getting beaten up in debates is good for yer brane.
They say everything is bigger in Texas. But California has taken the concept of being "boned" to new heights.
Mitt Romney is perhaps the worst candidate in GOP history. A Hollywood screenwriter couldn't come up with a more ridiculous caricature of a candidate. Radical Left-wing track record. Mormonism. Pandering. Lies about his record. Insincerity. Lust for power. Across the board flip-flopping from liberal to "conservative" on every issue under the sun just so he can secure the Republican nomination. Political opportunism at its worst. The man is a danger to the Republican party and the entire country.
Here's what Mitt Romney supported as Governor of Massachusetts:
1. Pro-abortion with taxpayer funding (added it to RomneyCare, kept it, refused to line-item veto it).
2. Pro-government mandated healthcare (RomneyCare has cost the state over 20,000 jobs and has actually increased the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts).
3. Pro-government mandates in general ("I like mandates" his own words on tape).
4. Pro-gay marriage with full state sponsorship (was first Governor to install it, earlier broke a law in his zeal to issue gay marriage licenses, then called opponents of his actions "right-wing").
5. Pro-transgender education to children in public schools (promoted by Governor Romney's administration, read Amy Contrada's book: "Mitt Romney's Deception").
6. Pro-openly gay scout masters in the boy scouts ("I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." U.S. Senate debate on Oct. 26, 1994. Massachusetts News, June 18, 2002.)
7. Pro-global warming caused by human activity (his own words)
8. Pro-environmental regulations to combat global warming (imposed massive environmental regulations in Massachusetts, according to the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said. On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”).
9. Pro-taxes on businesses (closed loopholes, then raised business taxes by $300 million as Governor of Massachusetts, according to USA Today).
10. Pro-taxes and fees on the public (Romney raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts. He raised fees by roughly $500 million in his first year alone, a figure that was highest in the nation. The state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration).
11. Pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants (supports path to citizenship for illegals, his own words in 2006)
12. Mitt declared himself a "moderate" and says his views are actually "progressive." (his own words).
Mitt Romney's track record is indistinguishable from a radical Leftist's. Romney's record is even to the Left of most Democrats! Consider how people destroyed Mike Huckabee in '08 over a couple of liberal blemishes in his record, but give a free pass to Mitt Romney who's track record is even worse. Across the board liberal worse! The man is a left-wing deceiver and it's the responsibility of real conservatives to expose him since the establishment GOP and "conservative" pundits aren't doing it. I see through the man. Can't you? He is utterly insincere. The man is a pathological liar. Is there a conspiracy to give this snake the nomination?
"My views are progressive."
Don't any of you people comment on the substance of these videos or do you all simply pontificate for your candidate no matter what the topic is? You people slay me with all your candidate bashing, juvenile behavior. GROW UP, morons!
There is no other candidate more qualified to run this country than Gingrich. He has baggage, yes....but show me a politician who doesn't and I'll introduce you to the real Godzilla (Obama).
We want Sharia Law outlawed in America. Newt's position on that alone gets our vote.
Newt First - ABO Second.
I think there ought to be overlapping terms for Court Justices in all Federal courts. Maybe a good way to deal with it is to have the POTUS nominate and get Senate confirmation, as usual, but let Congress vote to renew terms. So they'd get say one 7-year term, and then Congress can vote to renew them for another 7-years. Maybe even make that the max?
Another alternative would be to institute "no confidence" votes for Justices, where Congress can essentially require a fresh appointment for any Justice's seat. POTUS could re-appoint the same person, but they'd have to go through Senate confirmation again.
Those are just off the top of my head. And I just had a beer.
(Might require an amendment.)
Thank you for posting TRS. I just watched both of these twice and I can't find a single thing in what Newt says that I can disagree with. It seems that a lot of people posting here have already made up their minds and are married to dogma rather then hearing what the candidates say. I have nothing against Bachman and have a lot of respect for her as a strong minded woman, I do not believe for a second that she has sold herself to Romney but is just going after the front runner in the race. I am sure that if Romney was in the lead in the polls then she would be going for his jugular also.
Yet, I must say that Newt has gained a lot of my respect recently for how he has handled the attacks against him by multiple sides. Can anyone find proof that he lied about anything he said in this interview???
I think I have changed my current ranking of the candidates after the last debate and recent information I have read, including this interview: 1. Santorum, 2. Newt, 3. Bachmann, 4. Perry, 5. Huntsmann, 6. Romney
Here's the key -- it's always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the congress loses. The founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches. - Newt Gingrich
This is a point I've always thought was correct. But even guys like Mark Levin have tended to throw in the towel on ever doing anything about it. Gingrich's solutions are exactly what I thought the Constitution was created to allow.
People point to Jackson's famous decision not to "enforce" a particular ruling from the SCOTUS. They usually claim it's an example of Presidential over-reach, and that he was somehow in the wrong for daring to disagree with the court. The case was, of course, not as usually represented, and Jackson wasn't actually in much position to "enforce" anything relative to it, himself.
But his co-equal branch status should give him the right to decide on Constitutionality, just as Congress should do. It's only because of Marbury v. Madison that so many people have declared the SCOTUS to be the final arbiter.
In point of fact, voters are the final arbiter of law. We just don't get to make our choice happen all at once. Also, the process of jury nullification may (eventually) void a law. And Congress controls the makeup and jurisdiction of the federal courts and Supreme Court. So obviously the SCOTUS isn't the only such "final arbiter."
They just get all the press.
What Newt is saying here is we don't want to abolish the Judicial Branch we just want to make it irrelevant. Completely Unconstitutional. Completely Progressive. There are legitimate constitutional ways of achieving the same ends all of which are outlined in the constitution and which were used by previous presidents and mentioned by Mr. Gingrich here but none of them just simply ignored Supreme Court rulings. This is what he is advocating and it's Dangerous. I 100% agree with him on the problem he is addressing. However, I 100% disagree with his solution to this problem. Mr. Gingrich is a Progressive and he is Dangerous.
The point here is Michelle Bachman has changed in her understanding of Newt. I liked Newt Gingrich up until about 2 months ago when I began reading his comment and quotes of the passed and researching his voting record. Newt hasn't changed. Newt has always been a progressive. My understanding of Newt has changed because I have educated myself on the topic as has Michelle Bachman. I suggest everybody else do the same. So far essentially all of the people in support of Newt sound the same as those that have rallied around Obama in the passed. The same irrational arguments. The only difference has been the party. It seems to me that Newt supporters don't mind having a king as long as it's their king.
So what did you find in Newt's voting record that you found so distasteful? I hope which ever candidate you like has a voting record or has maintained impeccable voting records you like. Newt has voted over 7200 times, made of 15,000 speeches, written 24 books and written over 1500 opt-eds and editorials. I am sure anyone can find something to disagree with, if they look. Newt is the ONLY candidate putting forth actual real world solutions that are resonating with voters and has a lifetime "90" conservative rating form the ACU. His accomplishments in Congress as speaker prove he can get the job done FROM DAY 1 in Congress because he has done so in the past with a Dem President. Running our gov't is NOTHING like running a business. Want clarity to the things you found you do not like? Go to www.newt.org/answers. Point is if you are looking for perfection in a candidate, perfection only exists in one Jesus Christ. And last time I check, He ain't runnin'.
You're right. Michelle changed ... to a Republican from a Democrat working on Carter's campaign. Newt stepped on a lot of toes to break the 40 years stranglehold on the House of Representatives the Dems had, and is not a go along, get along kind of guy. Once Newt became Speaker, he took Clinton's budgets he sent the congress, which were no where near balanced, and BALANCED them. He then deregulated industries, one after another, and we had the greatest sustained growth in our history. He is absolutely RIGHT on the judicial system and his 21st Century Contract with America is brilliant.
Michele Bachmann hasn't changed, the only difference is she is running for president so she is trying to campaign on anything negative that might give her an edge. She's like a Cobra striking at Top GOP candidates, she gave the death blow to Tim Pawlenty, struck a warning at Sarah Palin when she thought maybe she would be her competition, she bit at Rick Perry, she bit at Herman Cain, now she bit Newt Gingrich, I guess we'll find out if she's give him a death blow. She even struck out against the Tea Party, saying they are being bought off by Newt without any proof... but all this does is help Romney, not her 'serious' bid for president.
Bachmann's campaign is weak, if it was strong she wouldn't need to be on the the attack, she's annoying, and too many people don't see her as being presidential.
Bringing the Judiciary back in line has really struck a nerve with progressives this has been their mainstay in implementing their socialist agenda. This is going to be a really big fight. Without lawless activist Judges making law from the bench the progressives are in big trouble. I'm glad this is finally on the national stage. Each of us has winced every time we hear about some judge deciding he is the law but no politician has stood up and said its time to stop this, instead it's a sound bite in a stump speech with no background or what can be done about it. Good for Newt.
Yeah. Putting the constitution back into the focus where the courts are to interpret the constitution versus legislate from the bench really puts the liberals and Progressives off.
Newt is exactly spot on about the balance of powers between the 3 branches of government. Expecially the point about the legislative was designed to be the weakest of the 3 branches.
Great interview, very comprehensive. I watched it on TV but turned it off before Scheffer could try to spin what was actually said. I thought the part about each branch of government being able to check the others to maintain a balance between the three was very informative.