Newt Gingrich thinks that when the country’s founders set up three branches of government, what they intended to create was a sort of a super triumvirate, under which whatever 2 out of 3 of the branches wanted would end the inquiry. Thus, if the Supreme Court were to stand in the way of the President and Congress, it would automatically “lose”:
In an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Gingrich continued to defend his controversial position that Congress and the president should have the authority to ignore the rulings of federal judges when they disagree with them.
Gingrich: Congress, president can ignore courts
Citing what he describes as “extreme behavior” on the party of the judicial system, Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
A novel interpretation of the founders, to be sure. And while I can certainly understand people’s frustrations with the Supreme Court, what would happen if Congress passed and the President signed unconstitutional legislation, and the Supreme Court did its job and ruled it unconstitutional? According to the Gingrich Doctrine, we’d be SOL.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the constitutional challenges to Obamacare.
Whatever.
Comments
8 responses to “2 out of 3, “we” win!”
Gingrich-Obama: can you see the difference? I can’t see the difference!
Woah, that’s pretty bad!
At least it’s starting to look like Gingrich timed his peak about two weeks too early… (well assuming that whoever peaks now is better 🙂
Well, 2 out of 3 is just dumb, but in light of Marbury v. Madison, in which the courts seized final authority, I would think any federal officer or office holder would be obligated not to enforce and to actively oppose any law which he deemed to be unconstitutional. One out of 3 should be the standard, and it should be any one, not just the courts. If the courts get frisky exercising powers not enumerated to them, there needs to be a way to smack them down.
The heart of the problem lies in determining who is right. Does absolute authority lie in the court? In the end the branches are semi-sovereign. Even when mandated, the legislatures don’t have to pass laws, the executives don’t have to enforce and the courts don’t have to adjudicate as ordered. Of course, if any branch were to the trigger on this, it’d be a disaster all around.
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to judge the constitutionality of laws. No branch has that power. The courts do it because Chief Justice Marshall usurped the power.
The power also does not exist in the Common Law tradition. In that tradition, courts are the agents of the King and later Parliament. Any law passed by Parliament and endorsed by the King was ipso fact constitutional.
This was the status in all the common law countries until very recently. Canada changed its constitution to allow judicial review only about a generation ago, and likely regrets it.
Any judge, Supreme or not, who asserts his right to judge the constitutionality of laws is in violation of his oath of office and should be removed.
Better yet, we should eliminate the entire federal establishment and return to the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation were a bust, primarily because they created a weak national government which couldn’t accomplish anything. The idea behind the Constitution (which I think is extraordinarily brilliant) is that it creates a strong BUT LIMITED Federal government. The Federal government has enormous power, but only within the narrow scope of its legitimate authority.
The main problem we have now is that the Federal government has exploded far beyond the bounds of its actual authority. It’s the “limited” part which is the problem, not the “power” part. We need to re-establish and enforce the already-existing limits on the Federal government, not leave it wide-spread but weaker.
Bob,
I was unaware of this… what rights does the Constitution give the Supreme Court?
The voters decide, is the way it works.
The President can do what he wants, Supreme Court willing or not, and if Congress doesn’t like it, it can impeach and remove the President.
Then the voters decide about Congress in the next election, for its removal or failure to remove.
I don’t know who impeaches judges, probably Congress too, but it’s the same deal. The voters decide if Congress has acted appropriately.
Don’t leave out the voters in the existing plan.
Depending on what Gingrich did, he could easily be removed by Congress.
This sounds familiar somehow…
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” — attributed to Andrew Jackson