September 23, 2004
Advertise  Subscribe


   Site Map
   Front Page
   Nation/Politics
   World
   Commentary
   Editorials/Op-Ed
   Metropolitan
   Sports
   Business
   Special Reports
   Technology
   Entertainment
   Books
   Food
   Wash. Weekend
   Travel
   Family Times
   Culture, etc.
   Civil War
   Weather
   Corrections
   Photo Gallery
   TWT Insider
Stock Quotes
Symbol Lookup
   Classifieds
   Home Guide
   Auto Weekend
   Employment
   Health
   Services Directory
   Market Place
   Tourist Guide
   Holiday Gift Guide
   International Reports
   Archive
   Subscription Services
   Advertise
   About TWT
   Contact Us
   TWT Gift Shop
   Insight Magazine
   The World & I
   National Weekly
   Middle East Times
   Tiempos del Mundo
   Segye Ilbo
   Segye Times USA
   Chongyohak Shinmun
   Sekai Nippo
   Wash. Golf Monthly

 

Top Stories
Allawi: 'Thank you America'
Rove touts Bush headway in key areas
Kerry claims Bush might reinstate draft
New site no walk in the ballpark
Rove scoffs at charge he was CBS source
Singer barred U.S. entry over terror links
Illegals' health care costs increasing  
Carb craze casualty  
AP Breaking News
Cleric Insists Iraq Elections Be on Time
Rising Death Toll Prompts Haiti Protests
Italy Clings to Hope for Hostages in Iraq
Hostage's Brother: U.S. Hinders Release
Stevens Vows to Seek Answers on U.S. Ban
Israel Says Iran No. 1 Terrorism Exporter
Russia Proposes U.N. Terror Suspect List
Gorbachev Says Iraq War'Undermined' Law
Former Drug Lord Shot, Killed in Brazil
Small Syrian Force Withdraws From Lebanon
UPI Breaking News
Ivan nears Texas; Jeanne targets Florida
Mark Hacking waives murder prelim in Utah
Calif. drug treatment plan seems to work
Hurricanes take bite out of Florida budget
Florida Court throws out 'Terri's Law'
Fall kills man at Universal Studios
Presidential debate tickets scarce
Shanghai Pact plans anti-terror force

Runaway courts


By Newt Gingrich

The Supreme Court's dismissal of Michael Newdow's case looked like a defeat for those who would remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. In truth, it was not.
    Dismissed on procedural grounds, the core issue in the case was set aside to be dealt with in another case at another time. But the court tipped its hand when five of the eight justices sent a clear signal that the first time they get a clear shot at this issue, they will rule in favor of stripping the Pledge of the words "under God" by making it unconstitutional. Therefore, before the court has that opportunity, Congress should act to strip the court of the authority to ever hear a case that would lead to that outcome by quickly passing the Kyl/Akin bill to prevent federal courts from ruling on any change to the Pledge of Allegiance.
    Over 90 percent of the American people favor the right to say "one nation, under God." With such an overwhelming consensus on this issue, the country has the right, through its executive and legislative branches, to send an instruction to the judicial branch and make its view well known. This is not an assertion of a new power. It is, in fact, power that has already been tested by a man somewhat familiar with the Constitution: Thomas Jefferson.
    Jefferson was unequivocal in his support for the American people's right to play an active role in defining and defending the Constitution. He called the notion of judges claiming to be the final, supreme interpreters of the Constitution "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." And when faced with an overreaching federal court system, Jefferson did not just talk; he took action.
    After the Jeffersonians defeated the Federalists in the 1800 election, President Adams tried to appoint 18 Federalist judges during the lame duck congressional session, more than doubling the number of judges already on the bench. In response, President Jefferson, immediately upon taking office, ordered his Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver their commissions, arguing that the appointments were an effort to thwart popular will. Two years later, Jefferson again showed his commitment to the people's ability to define the Constitution, denouncing the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, a case that actually prevented one of these judges from reclaiming his post, since the court invoked judicial review to overturn a previous act of Congress.
    Jefferson was not alone in denying that the Supreme Court has the final say in constitutional matters; it was also the position of Abraham Lincoln. The second time the Supreme Court used judicial review to overturn the laws of Congress, ruling that blacks could not become citizens in the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln refused to be bound by the decision and continued to treat free blacks as citizens, issuing them passports and supporting action in Congress to restrict slavery in the territories. He warned that "if the policy of the government is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt, too, believed in the people's right to interpret the Constitution. Amid the arguments for his New Deal reforms, he said, "the Constitution of the United States is a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract. Whenever legalistic interpretation has clashed with contemporary sense on great questions of broad national policy, ultimately the people and Congress have had their way."
    The truth is that the modern notion of judicial supremacy is an invention of the Warren court. In the 1958 case Cooper v. Aaron, the court claimed that Marbury had "declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution." But as Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer has noted, the notion of judicial supremacy is "just bluster and puff... the Justices in Cooper were not reporting a fact so much as trying to manufacture one."
    The time to reassert the right of the American people to instruct the court through the Legislative and Executive branches has come. America is a free nation and it is the duty of those who would represent the American people to find mechanisms for our generation which block activist judges from stripping us of the freedoms and values we believe in. Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Todd Akin's bill to prevent federal courts from ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance accomplishes this task, and is in the spirit of the popular constitutionalism of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It should be passed immediately.
    
    Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
    



If you enjoy Today's Columnist,
maybe you’d like to view the last five?

Sign up for the free Washington Times Insider!

Subscribe to the daily or weekly printed edition
Print this article Back to Editorial/Op-Ed
E-mail this article

 
Advertising
 
   
 
Guaranteed Lowest Hotel Rooms
Digital Camera Accessories
Estate agents UK
Italian search engine
Italian directory
Directory with submit
PH Balance - Alkalize with pH ion supplements
  Hotels & City Guides
Calories at CalorieKing.com
Energy drinks & sports bars
Charity fundraising ideas
Breast cancer charity
Tropical plants & Banana Tree seeds
Shopping Cart


All site contents copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc.
Privacy Policy
 
Editorials/Op-Ed