Gingrich claims ‘there is no Supreme Court’ in the U.S. Constitution

[babsbunny]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/gingrich-claims-there-is-no-supreme-court-in-the-u-s-constitution/

Posted on 07.12.11
By David Edwards
Categories: Featured, Say What?

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made the surprising and completely false assertion this week that the Constitution doesn’t mention the Supreme Court.

“There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution,” Gingrich told an audience in Pella, Iowa. “There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.”

In fact, Article III of the Constitution plainly states, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Watch this video, uploaded by Think Progress on July 12, 2011.

[spanone]

1. who?

[eppur_se_muova]

21. A one-time notorious miscreant, serial adulterer and political has-been...

... and that's according to his friends.

[spanone]

23. bwahahahahaaa

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[damntexdem]

26. Article III, Section 1:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

What isn't there is the concept that the SCOTUS could review the constitutionality of laws enacted. That power was taken by the SCOTUS in Marbury vs. Madison and subsequent decisions.

I guess ole Newt thinks that Dems will elected presidents not only in 2012 but beyond, so that the conservative control of the SCOTUS might end.

[SteveG]

29. What do you make of this language

Section 2--1 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-

I think it pretty much implies that the Court would have the power to decide if laws passed by Congress were valid under the Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Ok I have to ask... WHY is Newt pushing this?

He knows better... why? I mean the USSC has been of great help in the recent past to them

[spanone]

10. he's seriously in need of any kind of publicity....and he's getting some

[TomClash]

13. He wants to abolish the concept of judicial review

Over two centuries ago, the Supreme Court established the concept of judicial review over decisions of the Congress and Executive. He wants to reverse that. He has company - more than a few very "conservative" jurists agree.

[izquierdista]

So does Thom Hartmann

He has his own tirade on Marbury v. Madison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWecRfLov4

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. So does Thom Hartman, and I think this goes beyond that

[pnwmom]

14. It's a Rethug pipe dream. A Rethug House and Senate that could pass

anything it wanted -- assuming there was a Rethug President of course -- without that silly SCOTUS looking over their shoulders.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Interestingly enough, there is no mention of political parties in the Constitution

And yet, the Republican Party--who purport to love the Constitution so much--is hellbent on destroying the U.S. Constitution.

How's that for a bit of irony?

[Gabi Hayes]

31. Madison, Federalist Papers #10: largely interpreted as>>> political parties=factions

http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/413factions.htm

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Yes, I know the Federalist Papers very well. However, the point remains

No mention of political parties in the Constitution. Period!

[joeybee12]

4. So, he apparently attended those constitutional seminars bachmann arranged..nt

[Initech]

5. Considering we have a court that prefers big business over protecting citizen's, I actually agree.

[trotsky]

6. Marbury v. Madison

Geebus Newt for an "intellectual" you are dumber than a box of rocks.

[elleng]

9. Was gonna say that!

But if he'd heard about it he'd have to READ IT!!! Imagine that????

[pnwmom]

12. That was the case that decided the issue, but Newt's right

that the specific words are not in the Constitution. It doesn't matter, though; the issue was settled long ago.

[elleng]

17. Lots of 'specific words' not in constitution,

like 'separation of church and state,' 'right to privacy,' etc etc etc.

But he's wrong: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

[gkhouston]

19. Nah, he was skimming divorce papers that day. n/t

[hifiguy]

28. Indeed.

Chief Justice John Marshall definitively resolved this question more than 200 years ago. Now that's stare decisis.

[Renew Deal]

36. Wouldn't it be funny of Thomas, Scalia, and Alito voted to abolish themselves?

:D

[LaurenG]

7. Well Newt then what branch of Government are they?

Humm, are you smarter than a 5h grader could use him on their show.

[pnwmom]

18. Read the OP again. His point is not that there isn't a Supreme Court,

but that the founders didn't mean it to be able to over-turn laws passed or actions taken by Congress and the President. According to his way of thinking -- and some other conservatives -- the Supreme Court was meant to be Supreme over other COURTS only.

[LaurenG]

24. Oh thanks. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. On this, he is right. The SCOTUS is the last court of resort; it is "supreme" over the lower

appellate courts.

Hate to say it, but Newtie knows his shit. He just pretends that he's in league with the Teabaggers. And he is one of the most virulent racists around.

[FSogol]

8. Newt's strategy: Say intelligent-sounding crazy shit and garner attention.

He's trying to get back into the GOP's good graces ever since his fund-raising dried up.

[pnwmom]

11. There's no contradiction between his words and the Constitution.

He says "There's the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it's not supreme over the legislative and executive branch."

The Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court. . . ."

There's no contradiction there. What Newt is saying, which is not new, by the way, is that the writers of the Constitution never specifically said that the Supreme Court could over-rule laws written by the Legislative branch, or actions by the Executive Branch. And he's right that it doesn't specifically say that. But most Constitutional law people feel the issue was settled long ago, the first time the SCOTUS ruled that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional.

[Rex]

15. So what? Why are Repukes given national airtime when they

say something almost universally known by anyone that pays attention to the subject? Fucking pathetic, who did Newt blow this time to get airtime?

[bullwinkle428]

16. This is the right-wing's "intellectual titan"?

[Enrique]

20. Newt still pissed about Brown v. Board of Education

get over it already!

[21st Century FDR]

22. If Newt wants to abolish the CURRENT Supreme Court, I have no objections.

But I doubt he would be happy with Obama picking 9 new justices.

[H2O Man]

27. No Newt there.

One could argue that he doesn't exist .....

[Jello Biafra]

30. It is plainly obvious that...

reading the U.S. Constitution is not a prerequisite for running as a Presidential Candidate...

Of course, if you are a conspiracy theorist like me, if he said there was no American Constitution, I'd be with him on that....

[MineralMan]

33. Newtie's caught the GOP Brain Rot Virus from the current leadership.

It's clear.

[Renew Deal]

35. He must be drunk

again.

[Romulox]

37. Newt is right on this one. The issue was settled by SCOTUS decision,

but the Judiciary did essentially seize the power of review of the other branches for itself. This is not entirely in comportment with the concept of "three coequal branches" that the founders described.

[econoclast]

38. Um ... actually ... Newt is right

In Marbury v Masdison Chief Justice Marshall established the concept of Juducial Review. He pretty much usurped this authority and spun Judicial Review out of whole cloth.

But .... having invented the power, Marshall first used it to side with the then-current Jefferson admistration. So, the Jeffersonians had a quandry ... object to the line of reasoning that contributed to their winning the case, or sitting down and shutting up. They chose the later, and precedent for Judicial Review was established. Not by law and not under the Constitution ... but by a more or less naked power grab by the Chief Justice.