A Special Newsbite for Mary S., Carl V., and John H.

'Gingrich would arrest judges," scream the headlines. You'd think he'd proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead, Newt Gingrich's position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals for reining in judicial activism.

(*THUMBS UP*)

These include calling judges before Congress to explain their decisions, impeaching judges or eliminating courts that consistently get the Constitution wrong, and limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions that distort the Constitution.

(*THUMBS UP*)

All are constitutional if carefully implemented and constrained to the appropriate circumstances. For example, Congress routinely asks executive branch officials outside the White House to testify about their decisions. It occasionally subpoenas them to compel attendance, and arrest would be a last resort.

* AN OBVIOUS POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG!

(Subpoenaing Justices of the Supreme Court, the only court created by the Constitution, is a possible exception.)

* A POINT WHICH I TOO - BILL THE NON-LAW SCHOOL GRAD - HAVE MADE.

(*WINK*)

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" lower courts. That includes the power to eliminate courts and judgeships, as Congress has occasionally done.

* ANOTHER POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING MYSELF...

(*PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK*)

Nonetheless, Mr. Gingrich concedes that "Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited in most circumstances to check and balance the judiciary." Stubborn disregard for the Constitution falls short of the "good behavior" required of judges and may justify impeachment.

* AND AGAIN! (*STILL PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK*)

Another controversial proposal: limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Gingrich proposes what Abraham Lincoln outlined in his First Inaugural Address, that "in certain circumstances, the holdings of Supreme Court decisions should be limited to the litigants in a case, and not be held to apply as a general controlling standard." Accordingly, Lincoln refused to treat the high court's Dred Scott decision - now recognized as outrageous judicial activism - as binding on the executive branch. If Lincoln's position seems extreme today, it only reinforces Mr. Gingrich's point that the balance of power has shifted too much toward the judiciary.

(*NOD*)

* I'LL GO EVEN FURTHER. THE FACT THAT NO DOUBT FEW (IF ANY... AND I'M INCLUDING THE LAWYERS AMONG YOU!) OF YOU WERE AWARE OF THIS LEGAL PRECEDENT SHOULD ONCE AGAIN REINFORCE HOW THE ELITES FIGHT. THEY FIGHT DIRTY. THEY FIGHT BY DENYING MOST AMERICANS THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO ACT AS RESPONSIBLE, INDEPENDENT CITIZENS.

Mr. Gingrich understands that "judicial supremacy only survives due to the passivity of the executive and legislative branches."

* AND THE IGNORANCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! (THIS IGNORANCE BEING DELIBERATELY FOISTED UPON US!)

"The power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives" such that "the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention," [notes Gingrich.] He acknowledges the importance of an independent judiciary but points out that "judicial independence does not mean . . . judges can never be held accountable for their judgments . . . however extreme and unfounded."

* HEAR! HEAR!

Mr. Gingrich argues that the other two branches have the power and the obligation to push back. "The President and each member of Congress takes an oath to defend the Constitution," he notes; "if they believe that the judicial branch is acting contrary to the Constitution, then they have an obligation . . . to check and balance the judicial branch."

* AND SPEAKER GINGRICH IS CORRECT!

Mr. Gingrich doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Instead he offers several possible ways to push back while acknowledging that the best remedy for judicial activism is a president and Senate that will nominate and confirm constitutionalist judges.

* AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, FOLKS.