If the new New Deal wasn't scary enough, perhaps the strangling of the constitutionally designed checks and balances is.  The Obaba administration is pulling out more stops than most pundits knew existed.  Here is yet another.   The Liberals are amassing power to themselves in ways that haven't been attempted since their initial trial back at the beginning of the Great Depression.  Are you ready for this?  No dissent allowed.

Effort to Stack Supreme Court Taking Shape

World AffairsPolitics & Opinions

posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:20 PMBy jmalmberg

February 17, 2009 – In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was not happy with the Supreme Court. The Court had declared a number of the measures he was trying to implement in the name of fighting the Depression unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court was telling Roosevelt that he was meddling in state matters where the federal government didn’t have jurisdiction. So a dirty little trick was hatched, and in 1937 the administration advanced a proposal to stack the Court. Although the proposal failed, it created an environment that called the independence of the court system into question and in which the Court was actually afraid to overturn legislation in the name of the Constitution. And now a group of 31 intellectuals and former politicians with some of the most liberal leanings in the country are proposing that Congress take up a similar measure.

Roosevelt’s proposal was simple. He wanted Congress to allow him to make one judicial appointment for every federal judge who served past the age of 70 years and six months. This would have allowed him to appoint six new Supreme Court Justices as well as 44 other appointments to lower courts. Because the Supreme Court had been divided on a number of decisions regarding the New Deal, the scheme would have assured Roosevelt that the Court would no longer overturn his proposed laws.

As it turned out, just the threat of the court packing scheme was enough to stop the Court from voting against him. And its effect was profound. In fact, from 1937 to 1995, not one single piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a President was declared unconstitutional. And during that same period of time, the federal government began to regulate everything from drug usage to the number of hours per day that schools are required to teach. In short, Roosevelt’s plan allowed the federal government to not only intrude on every day life, but to heavily regulate it.

The new proposal being put forth is called the Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2009. It differs in certain respects from the 1937 proposal but its effect would be similar. Among other things, it would allow the President and Congress to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice every two years without forcing the retirement of sitting justices, rotate the position of Chief Justice and force the court to decide cases it doesn’t want by placing the decision for which cases are heard in the hands of lower court judges.

The effect of the proposal would be to grow the size of the court and to politicize it. Sitting Presidents would have much greater influence over the court than they currently do. No longer could decisions rendered by the court be considered independent.

The proposal would also put much more influence into the hands of lower courts. With some limitations, those deciding which cases the Court should hear could effectively avoid having their decisions overturned by not submitting certain cases to the review process. This is neither desirable nor efficient.

To understand the reason for the proposal, you really need to take a look at those who are making it. Vikram D. Amar is a law professor at Berkley and UC Davis and has received awards from the ACLU. Paul D. Carrington is a professor at Duke who has openly lamented about the removal of Rose Bird - who was ultra-liberal even by California standards - by California voters as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. (Note: As a native Californian who remembers Rose Bird vividly, I can tell you that she deserved to be shown the door.) Lino A. Graglia, although leaning conservative in many areas, has compared the US Supreme Court to Iran’s “grand council of ayatollahs” and argues that the courts should be used to pursue social changes.  And that covers just a few of the thirty one people who are making the proposal to Congress. Most of the others have similar credentials. These so called intellectuals are largely opposed to the idea of a conservative Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, to advance political views or a social agenda. The Court is there to insure that laws are constitutional and applied as intended by Congress. If the Court becomes stacked or more political, the Constitution is likely to take a back seat to the political winds of the day; a situation that would jeopardize each of our constitutional rights.

It is also important to note that an independent judiciary is constitutionally required. The changes being proposed by this “group of 31” would certainly bring that independence into question.

But the risk posed by this proposal is real. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff has said that “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” And the circumstanced under which Obama comes to office are all to similar to those surrounding FDR’s assent. This means that the proposal can’t simply be dismissed.

This new scheme to stack the court must be viewed with great concern by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the Constitution. It is worth noting that many years after Roosevelt pushed through his New Deal, one of its chief architects – Rexford Tugwell – said of it, “To the extent that these policies developed, they were the tortured interpretations of a document (the Constitution) intended to prevent them.” He is clearly saying that the Roosevelt administration understood that the New Deal was unconstitutional but that they didn’t really care.

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

The California proposition 8 is an issue that is bigger than the homosexual marriage issue.  This is about 4 men thwarting the will of well over 60% of the people of California.  This proposition will amend the constitution of California to put the gay marriage out of reach of those judges.  Watch this video and take to heart the message Newt delivers about how fundamental this issue is to the design our founding fathers intended for this country.  Activist judges have been imposing their will over the will of the people for decades.  With this amendment, we Californians can send a message to all activist judges to abide by their intended roles and halt their over stepping the authority afforded them in the Constitutions of state and federal design.

I get too many newsletters.  Back a couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article titled 'A Nation at War with Itself'  It would have been nice to have read this article by Newt Gingrich to include a few points about how the war is being fought.  I suppose I could call this a supplemental post, but the newsletter was there sitting in my inbox the whole time.  This happens on a regular basis, but more so in the last month or more.  I've addressed, so I should be able to do a better job of it now.  I've posted the article here so you can read it for yourselves.

Judges overstepping their authority is nothing new.  Newt informs us of the historical precedence of the presidential powers combining with the legislative powers to set them straight on their job description as I described in the original post.  He specifically cites a case pertaining to Habeus Corpus and presidential authority to make policy in regard to enemy combatants.  This authority may not be popular with the America hater crowd, but it is essential to the war effort.  Since we do have a fifth column seated in Congress and since the MSM is complicit with enemies of the state and since the term is coming to an end for the current president, he will not be the presiding president over the correction of the judicial authority.  Will the maverick do it?  Probably.  Depends on how far they go during his tenure.

Congress and the President Need Not Acquiesce to a Tyrannical Court

President Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonians successfully fought back against the Federalists' use of the courts to impose their agenda over the will of the people. After the Federalists lost the election of 1800, but before the new Jeffersonian congressmen took office, the Federalists more than doubled the number of federal circuit judges (from seventeen to thirty-five) and packed them with loyal Federalists. The Jeffersonians reacted by simply eliminating all eighteen new federal circuit court judgeships.

President Abraham Lincoln refused to treat the Dred Scott decision, which both declared unconstitutional a federal law that had limited the extension of slavery and that blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, as legally binding on the executive branch. For example, his administration issued U.S. passports to free blacks and signed legislation that placed restrictions on slavery in the federal territories, positions at odds with the Dred Scott decision.

And in June 1942, when German spies who had landed in the U.S. to carry out acts of industrial espionage were captured by the FBI, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted swiftly to signal to the Supreme Court that he was not going to entertain court intervention. First, FDR issued an executive order on July 2, 1942 that the detainees were to be subject to trial immediately by military commission. FDR also made clear to his attorney general what his reaction would be to any writ of habeas corpus: "One thing I want clearly understood . . . I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." FDR understood the Supreme Court was supreme in the judicial branch but it was not supreme over the other two political branches.

The executive and legislative branches possess clear constitutional powers to check and balance decisions of the judicial branch. The Boumediene decision requires that the executive and legislative branches act to reestablish a constitutional balance among the three branches. I will be writing more about this subject in weeks to come.

		Your friend,
		Newt Gingrich

Ever been on the road when another driver is making erratic moves and false signals?  You don't know whether to pass him or hang way back and wait for the inevitable accident to occur and all you can do is pray he gets off the road before he hurts himself or worse, somebody else.  Have you ever been the one others are looking at as if you got your license from a Cracker Jack box?  If we compare these kinds of road experience to the nations of the world, you can look around and see other nations swerving all over the pavement bumping into one another vying for more prominent positions in world economy and military might.  Little neighboring countries in Africa are like the cars behind us, they matter because we hate to see others hurt, but we are out of the danger zone.  Others are nearer to us and most of them seem to have a steady hand at the wheel.  One by one, others are coming up from behind and absolutely have no concern for their own welfare or anyone else's.  It used to be that the drivers would take it upon themselves to scare the nuttiness out of those passing carelessly, it used to be that the other passengers in the car being driven so dangerously would take that driver away from the wheel and put in somebody much more careful.  Nowadays, the passengers are divided, half cheering him on and the other half sitting quietly and grumbling.  Nowadays, the other cars don't want to deal with the nut, so he is zipping by them and making sure everybody on the road is intimidated by him. Often times, there are fights in the front seat over the wheel.

Lately, even though we have been way out front, the rest of the field is watching us wander from right side to left side occasionally jerking onto the left shoulder and skidding back onto the pavement.  Now, if you think of years as being minutes, its easy to see how that could be.  Every four minutes we are changing drivers and there is always a huge discussion over who the next driver will be.  The other drivers had grown accustomed to this and most would hang back whenever it was time to make the switch.  Just lately we have the governmental powers fighting over the wheel.  The president is supposed to be the one at the wheel.  But Congress has been doing its best to usurp the authority of the president to steer the bus in defensive action and aggressive action.  Add to that the Supreme court jumping in and pulling the wheel hard to the left working to take the authority to imprison battlefield combatants until war's end.  Nobody else on the road wants to work with us to ensure security because they don't know if we'll be a friend or a backstabber in the next few minutes.

So, now its time to choose a new driver again and we need to consider all that this driver is going to have to face.  Nobody in the other cars are willing to step up and do something about the gang of cars known as Islamic jihad.  This president and this congress will have to make decisions about powers commandeering the wheel and if they don't or won't, we passengers are going to have to hit the brakes and decide for the three powers, who is supposed to drive.  Wait!  Where did the brake pedal go.  Didn't we have one installed when we built this vehicle known as the union of states?  The steering wheel is being fought over and we don't have brake pedal?  Is anybody in the front seat doing something about this?  Is anybody on the bus even concerned enough to sound an alarm?

Okay, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the concern should come through loud and clear.  If we don't settle down and work out a clear plan of operation, we very likely will become the former world power.  Those who think that would be a good thing are by definition anti-American.  Who would step up to ensure the good things America does?  Would China act as the world councilor and police for human rights?  Do you think the United Nations could do it?  Maybe you could place your trust in Islam?  Which entity around the world has the muscle or the will to influence the world's drivers to serve their own well and work within the constraints of the rules of the road?  No other country or world power has both the power and the will for the job and if we allow Islam or the UN or anybody with enough might to make the rules of the road, this will be a far different world.  Islam would create a far more dangerous road by taking other vehicles and using them to their own ends.  China would probably do something similar.  The UN is basically a subset of Islam.  Every other entity is either too weak or has already succumbed to the influence of radical Islam.

Once you put a light on the responsibility of the lead position, you begin to see how tenuous is the role we play in world politics and the consequences of dropping that responsibility begin to look more ominous than the 2nd amendment or a marriage certificate for homosexuals.  This election will literally decide whether we place more judges who will fight for the wheel or more judges who will take the roll the builders and planners designed for them, whether we have a Congress who help and back the driver or are also pulling and fighting for the wheel.  The parties have drawn clear lines on who will take the wheel from the assigned driver and who will support the decision making structure as designed by the original driver and navigators.  I suggest you vote for a conservative veteran this election, whether for president or for Congress.

The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.