The Issue: Candidate Newt Gingrich’s belief in presidential power over the federal judiciary.
***
Newt Gingrich says he would not feel compelled always to follow Supreme Court decisions on constitutional questions, a statement that should automatically disqualify him from being president (“Supreme Lunacy,” George F. Will, Post-Opinion, Dec. 26).
Our Constitution is based upon the separation of powers.
The Legislature passes laws, the Executive performs those laws and the Judiciary decides their constitutionality. This arrangement — the rule of law — is basic civics.
Gingrich quotes Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln as precedents, yet Jefferson’s failure to obey a law passed by Congress led to the seminal Marbury v. Madison decision, establishing the court’s right of review.
Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that the government of the United States is a “government of laws, and not of men,” with even the president being subservient to the law.
Presidents uniformly have deferred to Supreme Court decisions. Arrogant, bumptious Gingrich states he’s above this.
S. Chinn
Manhattan
***
If you want to bash Gingrich for any of his personal baggage, go right ahead. Many of his former House Republican colleagues warn against him because of personality problems.
But George F. Will lectures on an independent judiciary and shows he doesn’t know the difference between independence and unbridled tyrannical power.
Will, therefore, disqualifies himself as a judge of the problem — that the enabling legislation for the federal judiciary has to be modified and amended.
District court judgeships should not be lifetime appointments and should not offer dictatorial powers over deciding constitutionality, thereby nullifying willy-nilly all acts of Congress and the president.
Will should read a little history and stop being the Democratic radicals’ best friend.
Ira Silverman
Yorktown Heights
***
Gingrich and President Obama may not be ideological twins, but they both have blind spots.
Gingrich’s blind spot is his position on the judiciary.
He tries to wear the mantle of Jefferson, but even Jefferson violated his own principles for the sake of the nation, hence the Louisiana Purchase.
It is the court that gives us a sense of nation.
Without judiciary independence, we would not be free, and the nation would cease to be.
Gary Schwartz
Fort Lee, NJ
***
Over the years, I’ve always considered Will to be an insightful writer. But in “Supreme Lunacy,” Will goes after Gingrich with a one-sided, negative column against the former speaker of the House as he continues to seek the GOP nomination.
But if Will truly believes that Gingrich is devoid of any meaningful merit as a public official, how is it that he became speaker of the House, second in line to become president, after being selected by the GOP?
Thomas Dennelly
Sayville
***
Gingrich was correct in his Iowa debate concerns about the federal judiciary.
As early as 1821, Jefferson was prophetic when he warned that the federal judiciary is an irresponsible body, “advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States and the government of all be consolidated into one.”
Considering the unabated growth and advance of federal government and power from FDR to LBJ, and now with President Obama’s unconstitutional health-care mandates and energy, finance and administrative regulations, Jefferson’s fears, now ours, are clearly being realized.
Indeed, the long-term inundation of attorney-driven, unreasonably complicated local, state and federal laws and activist courts, coupled with the predatory legal industry, have restricted our freedoms and raised the cost of living beyond control.
Daniel Jeffs
Apple Valley, Calif.