For the last two days, the anti-Newt crowd has been on a tear with comments he made over the weekend. It’s not enough that Newt is not conservative enough for the social conservatives. Now, in addition to their inaccurate description of Newt as a progressive, they are trying to twist his words to fit their agenda.
Newt will arrest judges who render decisions he doesn’t like or some other similar wordings were plastered all over the internet. The discussion saturated the political news on cable news shows, all day yesterday. Then we had an array of so-called experts, both liberal and conservative, launch into baseless diatribes about how unconstitutional this is.
We had Paulbots peppering the internet comment sections with allegations that Newt is a fascist and statements of assurances that only Ron Paul will protect us from a fascist state. At the same time, we had GOP elitists alluding to Newt being a radical. They said he is an out of control candidate, which is why we need to support Romney.
If we say we are for truth, then let’s stop for a moment and seek it in its purest form, shall we?
Congress has the power to subpoena. It is one of the three co-equal branches of government that has the authority to seek information that may or may not lead to impeachment of a figure, in one of the other branches. If there is suspected malfeasance, they have the right to investigate and subpoena an individual for the purpose of gathering information, and possibly making an attempt to remove the person form their position.
Eric Holder was involved with a Justice Department decision that was clearly not constitutional (SEE:Fast and Furious). Eric Holder was issued a subpoena, by law he was required to appear, and he did. So, it also goes with the judiciary. A judge issues a decision or a series of decisions that are not rooted in constitutional law, the Congress does have the right to subpoena the judge before Congress and ask him questions about why he rendered such decisions. If it is found he did not render them within the limits of the Constitution, they can attempt to impeach and remove him/her
If a judge (or any other official) refuses to appear before Congress, he/she is in contempt of Congress. This is clearly against the law and gives the President the authority to have the Justice Department issue warrants, for the subjects to be arrested by federal marshals.
This is what Newt was saying, this is the legal process. But the left and the anti-Newt forces have blown this so far out of proportion that most people are trembling at the provisions made in the Constitution, all the while telling people they want to bring the government back to the principles of it.
If we truly need to get back to the principles intended by the Founding Fathers who wrote that document, this means we cannot distort its words to fit a political campaign message. It means we need to know and understand what the Constitution says, before we fly off the handle because we do not like a candidate. Let’s not write Obama’s campaign ads for him.