Gingrich: Something is wrong with the judicial system

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate, explained to Bob Schieffer his reasoning behind why the president should be able to ignore the Supreme Court.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• cbsepisode
• newt
• gingrich
• gop
• republican
• presidential
• canditate
• race
• supreme
• court
• president
• government
• explaination
• face
• the
• nation
• cbs2012

[star50ify]

Yes something is wrong with the judicial system. You Newt are not in jail.

[lsdesign]

newt is a turd

[stavie04]

@PatriotCondor There have several civilians arrested who haven't attempted to overthrow the government or do any harm whatsoever who have been imprisoned due to sketchy laws in the Patriot act.

[stavie04]

@PatriotCondor I sent you the link in your email, its too much to post here and it has each amendment up next to the law in direct violation

[stavie04]

@PatriotCondor Such power creates corruption in the powers vested in our representatives. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin

You still haven't given me a good argument as to why the Patriot act doesn't violate the Constitution.

[PatriotCondor]

@stavie04 As a result, it is entirely Constitutional.

[PatriotCondor]

@stavie04 Furthermore... when such acts are committed against ones own nation, and is enumerated or described accordingly in the Patriot, which does in fact list actions of terrorism that relates directly to the jihadist movement, the Constitutional rights afforded to such individuals may be suspended in order to enact procedures in accordance with the war powers act.

[PatriotCondor]

@stavie04 You keep forgetting, that when a civilian... even an American citizen.. takes up arms against its governemnt in attempt to subvert, damage, or overthrow its government (ie. terrorism) isn't just considered a criminal act. It is considered an act of war, by which such an act then goes outside the written federal laws of the United States, and the laws of war then apply. Thus, the President has executive authority to use military engagement, and tactics to stop such insurrective actions.

[PatriotCondor]

@stavie04 So... exactly what part of the Constitution is the Patriot directly in violation of?

Seriously, read me word for word what is in violation. Don't just tell me about how you FEEL!!! I'm not concerned about how you feel. And, I don't want some garbage you read off some liberal pot smoking junk website with no Articles of the bill as direct reference, and absolute literal contradiciton and violation of the Constitution. I want an ABSOLUTE FACT!!!

So... go ahead show me. YOU CAN'T!

[stavie04]

@PatriotCondor Furthermore the Constitution obviously didn't grant power to Congress to write laws in direct violation of itself therefore all in congress who voted for the Patriot act are traitors of the Country. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE CONSTITUTION, any law in direct opposition to was has been stated in the Constitution is in direct violation of the Constitution duh. Did you ever pay attention in history class as a child? its pretty cut and dry

[stavie04]

@PatriotCondor I did pay attention and I told you that's a bunch of bull. The Patriot act is direct violation of  the constitution and our rights as U.S citizens, it gives the government the power for illegal searches and seizures, the power to detain you indefinitely, the right to take away free speech, it gives the fbi power to write its own search warrants without a Judge, the right for them to install cameras in your house up to 18 months. Have you read the Constitution?

[PatriotCondor]

@stavie04 Um... yes, it is legal. Primarily, because Congress made it LAW!!!

And I did not say we declared war. I said, even when war HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED!!! You need to pay attention. Yes, the President has executive military authority to engage enemy combatants without a formal declaration. This Patriot Act has already been thrown at the courts and numerous analysts for the last decade, and everyone with a brain stem bigger than a pipe cleaner has said it is constitutional.