What is it about conservatives that make them hate our system of government? We have Rick Perry, as governor of Texas, threaten to secede if the federal government (i.e, "the people" of "We, the people...") tries to make Texas do things he doesn't agree with, and now we have Newt Gingrich tell us that if he is elected President he will ignore Supreme Court rulings if he disagrees with them!
Appealing to conservatives wary of the court system, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Friday not only called for reforming the judicial branch, but he also said he'd ignore the Supreme Court if he fundamentally disagreed with them.
"This modern model is just totally opposite the American tradition," Gingrich said of the judicial branch at the Values Voters Summit in Washington, a conference organized by the conservative Family Research Council Action.
...Gingrich said, "one of the major reasons I am running" for president is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' 2002 ruling that the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The ruling was later overturned.
Gingrich slammed a handful of cases he considered judicial overreach, such as the California Proposition 8 ruling, which he said amounted to "one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage." He called out a U.S. District judge who this year banned formal prayers at a San Antonio high school graduation, saying Congress should hold hearings on the matter.
"On the issue of God and American public life, the courts have been historically wrong at least since the 1940s," Gingrich said.
Hmmm. I was taught in my Baptist Sunday School that the Christian God was really, really powerful, that he essentially ruled the world...and yet he hasn't been able to make the American courts shape up and respect him for over 70 years? And you people still worship him?
But I digress. It has generally been accepted in America that we consent to abide by the rules (laws) made by the elected representatives of all the citizens. Some of these rules may seem silly, stupid, or even grossly unfair, but our government provides many avenues for overturning or modifying laws you disagree with. Ignoring them is certainly one avenue, but of course there are major consequences: arrest, dismissal, or impeachment for example. These are pretty drastic and that is why ignoring laws and rulings is usually stupid. For a person running for President of the United States to pledge to ignore all court rulings he fundamentally disagrees with is admitting he will almost certainly be impeached down the road. I guess he fancies himself a martyr for God. Just remember, Gingrich was once the Speaker of the House, he had his picture on the cover of all the news magazines, he was considered an intellectual. He's been married three times, divorced twice, and rages about how gays are trying to sully marriage in America!
How about this? If the Republicans take the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, we pledge to ignore any laws they pass that we fundamentally disagree with.
--Trakker
How about this?
A Congress that would retire 1 law per congressman per week. Or simplify 1 law pCpW to 200 words or less.
Newt isn't the only dreamer.
Posted by: horsec | October 08, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Sounds good but that would result in 22,600+ laws to be read and ratified a year. Knowing how little time the House spends in session nothing else would get done (or is that the point?)
Posted by: Trakker | October 09, 2011 at 09:59 AM
22,600+ laws to be read and ratified a year
Each congressman could hire 1000 readers. Each reader could read 1 bill/day. Not too strenuous if the bills are limited to 200 words or less.
Think of it as a "Jobs" bill.
The point was, 'too many laws,' hence the request for a reduction of the number of laws. The laws we're supposed to live by must be comprehensible to the layman. If there are too many laws even to be read, how are we supposed to obey them? The 'law' becomes a trap wherein everything is against the law, or some law somewhere. The RAND Corporation studied this and concluded years ago, IIRC, that no one could go 5 minutes with breaking some law.
E. g: Drug dealers must travel with GIS maps on a laptop to be sure they aren't dealing withing 1500 feet of a school, so not to face extra penalties.
Posted by: horsec | October 11, 2011 at 03:48 PM
In my former life (the one where I used to go to work) I had to use and abide by the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR). We should start by translating that into English. The IRS tax codes were a pleasure to read after a day reading the CFR!
Posted by: Trakker | October 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM