Newt Gingrich made the assertion this week that the Constitution doesn’t mention the Supreme Court

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.”

Source

Gee where does this claim come from ? Why would some one running for office make such a claim ? Can't see such a statement attracting many votes ?

reply to post by Max_TO


I think he means the "New Constitution of 1913" aka "The Federal Reserve Act" that Woodrow Wilson signed.

Colonel Edward Mandell House * was referred to by Rabbi Stephen Wise in his autobiography, Challenging Years as "the unofficial Secretary of State". House noted that he and Wilson knew that in passing the Federal Reserve Act, they had created an instrument more powerful than the Supreme Court. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors actually comprised a Supreme Court of Finance, and there was no appeal from any of their rulings.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

What he's saying is that all the branches should be equal as that was the intention of the people who wrote the Constitution. He is making his point very stupidly however I'll give you that.

His chances really aren't that good unless others campaigns start imploding so I look at him as sort of an alternate pick. Kind of a back-up candidate if you will.

3 "equal" branches:
He's right: the vote (ruling) of 5 justices doesn't constitute a "constitutional convention" to change or invalidate the constitution.

I think he is probably challenging the very notion of judicial review established by Marbury V. Madison in which the court basically gave itself the right to overturn Legislative or Executive actions on the ground that they are unconstitutional.

reply to post by watcher3339


Yea I agree that's probably his point. He's spoken about the Supreme Court many times so he obviously knows quite a bit about them. This is just being taken out of context.

I will say however that alot of his views are very weird.

Court Adjourned

“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.”

His rhetorical point could certainly have been made better, but attempts to play it for what it clearly was not seem disingenuous.

Teapot forecast: tempest.

yeah before I even read the text I said to myself
Article 1 President Article 2 Congress Article 3 Court yep Supreme Court.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by watcher3339

 

Yea I agree that's probably his point. He's spoken about the Supreme Court many times so he obviously knows quite a bit about them. This is just being taken out of context.

I will say however that alot of his views are very weird.

Yay! Your points are always well thought and well written and yet we so rarely agree on anything. That we agree today (and on his views being somewhat odd as well) pleases me!

The Supreme Court and Judicial Branch in general is just as corrupt as the other two branches.

For, in the end, just like all other federal servants, their goal is not to defend the Constitution, but to undermine it. They desire not to serve the people but to enrich themselves through crime.

Federal employees like those on the Supreme Court should NOT be paid at all. They should serve because they are moved by the ideas of liberty and freedom not the shiny coins offered by the bankers.

Let them earn an income elsewhere. The Supreme Court is not an employment opportunity. It is holy obligation.

The is no Spirit in Washington, DC.. Just a lot of pigs and criminals and killers feeding of the corpse of a wasted people.

I guess Americans just don't get what America is about anymore.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


Actually I think anybody with the power the Supreme Court has should be paid very very highly. It reduces the chances of them being bribed. If they don't need anything they are less likely to be influenced.

And just speaking on the Supreme Court it is a lifetime achievement to get that position unlike most jobs in the Federal Government. Takes alot of work and time and luck.

reply to post by kro32


Paid to not take bribes is pretty much bribery.

If they desire to earn big dollars, they can do it elsewhere. If they desire to serve the people, if that desire burns so brightly, then they would be drawn to serve regardless of how much they are paid. That they desire high compensation speaks to their lowest desire and brings into question their desire to serve the people.

I just don't see how big bucks makes better judges. It seems to make them greedy for money not desirous of justice.