Newt Gingrich - The Constitution
American View Interview
In 2005 Congressman Gingrich was interviewed by the American View and spoke about a number of subjects. When discussing the education reforms proposed in his "Winning the Future" book, Congressman Gingrich and the interviewer spoke about the legality of the department of education and constitutional government.
L: ... In any event, let’s move on to reforms. You advocate in your book many reforms. Reforms of Federal programs in Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for example. But, I would argue that these programs are unconstitutional, sir. Where do you see authority, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, for Congress to appropriate money to spend for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education These programs are not authorized by the Constitution.
G: Well (chuckles), you are describing a dramatically narrower interpretation of the Constitution. When you realize, for example, that even prior to the Constitution, that the Northwest Ordinance clearly provided provisions for government to be engaged in education. The Founding Fathers in the first decade of the country undertook steps that involved spending money for education. I understand being a strict constructionists of the —-.
L: But, I thought all conservatives were strict constructionists. You say I have a narrow view. Well, yeah. I mean, we do have a government, do we not —- and correct me if I’m wrong —- of enumerated powers. And they are listed in Article 1, section 8 and —-.
G: But, they’re also listed at the very beginning in a stunningly broad way. Even Jefferson, who was in many ways was the most limited-government person of the Founding Fathers, was prepared to do things that were sort of surprisingly flexible. So I’m just saying you can make the case, and I respect making the case, I see no prospect in our lifetime, that the country is going to decide that government has no role in these items.
L: Well, now, that is possibly the weakest argument for anything —- to say, “Well, the people will never go along with it.” I tell you what – people will never go along with it as long as nobody advocates it.
SORRY, FELLAS, but Newt says your ‘limited government’ ideas would get only six votes in Congress
G: I’m happy for you to advocate it. In the writing of the book about what I thought were some fairly significant reforms, it struck me that I could offer some suggestions to move the country in the right direction, that were useful. You would propose to abolish these programs. Fine. You can propose that. You’ll get six votes in the Congress for it. There’s some chance, however, that I can reform it.L: Well, I guess what I’m saying is programs that are unconstitutional, which is to say illegal, ought not to be reformed. They ought to be abolished! And , like I said, I became a Republican and a conservative in 1964. I was not a Christian then. Now, I am a Christian. I call myself a recovering Republican. And I’m a member of the Constitution Party.
I was attracted to Republicanism and conservatism, Goldwater —- if you read his platform and I read recently — he talked constantly about Federal debt, limited, Constitutional government. That is long gone, Mr. Speaker. The Constitution is a letter in the Congress.
G: We balanced the budget in the act of 1997. We paid off $405 billion in Federal debt, and in that sense we were moving in a pattern that you should have felt offered some glimmer of hope.
L: But, I’m trying to make the argument that there is something called Constitutional government. You talked about balancing the budget. But, that in no way addresses the subject of whether a program is Constitutional. My opinion, an informed opinion, a 40-years-of-watching-Washington-opinion, is that the Republicans and the Democrats are having what they think is this big war. But, it’s really between only the two 49 yard lines. They are arguing and fighting about funding levels. But, no one is talking about whether or not programs are legal, whether they are Constitutional! That is a key issue. Unconstitutional programs are a root cause of our huge government and our debt. You know Stephen Moore, right? He’s a budget expert and senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
G: Sure.
L: He told me that 90 percent —- that’s 9-0 percent —- of what the Federal Government does is unconstitutional.
G: Well, that is an interesting theoretical view. But in fact it doesn’t have much impact in the practical world.
Judicial Supremacy
In June of 2009, Congressman Gingrich spoke at a lecture series at the UGA Law School. He spoke about the role of all three branches to obey the Constitution.
Response to Copenhagen Summitt
In December of 2009, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for Human Events in response to President Obama's planned participation in a Copenhagen Summit which could commit the US to EPA restrictions that would be enforced by the UN.
Message to Copenhagen: Our Constitution Begins, 'We the People...'by Newt Gingrich
12/16/2009 Tomorrow morning, the delegates at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen will awaken to a very simple but powerful message:
“In America, We Have a Constitution. It Begins: We the People…”
These are the opening lines of a message to the American delegates in Copenhagen and the rest of the world sent on behalf of the American people by American Solutions. They are meant as a reminder to both Obama Administration officials and international climate activists that under our constitutional system, the American people, not government bureaucrats, are sovereign.
Ronald Reagan was right when he said that America is a nation that has a government -- not the other way around.
And if you have any doubt that the delegates at Copenhagen need to hear this message, take a look at this: (picture not shown)
This is a reference guide being handed out by one of the non-governmental organizations at Copenhagen to keep track of all the proposals to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation. Its purposefully modeled after the Chinese mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung’s “Little Red Book of Communism.”
Can the profoundly undemocratic nature of this conference be any clearer?
Congress Has the Power to Protect the Constitution. It Should Use It.
American Solutions’ message to the Obama Administration and the Copenhagen delegates is this:
President Obama cannot bind the American people to job killing international agreements on climate change without the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
Similarly, he can’t bypass the peoples’ representatives in Congress by having the EPA pursue the same goals through bureaucratic totalitarianism.
This message to the President is also a message to Congress. Should the Obama Administration act unilaterally and subvert the Constitution, the American people will rightfully rise up in opposition.
Congress has the power to protect its constitutional role and protect the people’s voice in how we’re governed. It should use it.
Substituting the Advice and Consent of the Senate with the Bureaucratic Power of the EPA
When he travels to Copenhagen this week, President Obama is reportedly going to pledge to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020.
The Obama Administration’s various threats to act unilaterally -- both in Copenhagen and at home via the EPA -- to achieve this goal occur against the backdrop of this inescapable fact: The Senate, reflecting the will of the American people, refuses to pass the administration’s job killing cap and trade legislation.
The result is that the administration is preparing to bypass the Senate with its announcement last week that the EPA will regulate carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant.
Knowing that it lacks the votes in the Senate to ratify any binding commitment made in Copenhagen to radically lower emissions, the administration may well attempt to use the EPA’s newly asserted power -- thus bypassing Senate ratification -- to implement the agreement.
This would be a breathtakingly anti-democratic and unconstitutional arrogation of power on the part of the President. But it is exactly what some groups are pressuring the President to do. See this report, “Yes He Can: President Obama’s Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress” by the Center for Biological Diversity Climate Law Institute.
And Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the co-author of the energy tax in the House of Representatives, stated this past weekend on “Fox News Sunday”, in response to Chris Wallace’s question about whether President Obama could make a binding commitment at Copenhagen, that “without question, the President does have the authority to make a commitment based upon the endangerment finding -- that is the authority the EPA will have.”
Such action would be a corruption of America’s constitutional system that the Congress must reverse.
Does Senator Webb Believe the Authority of the EPA Can Substitute for the Authority of the Senate?
Some senators seem to get this. On “Fox News Sunday” last weekend Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) stated flatly that the President doesn’t have the power to make binding emissions reductions commitments at Copenhagen.
And Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb recently wrote an open letter to President Obama in which he warned the President not to make binding commitments at Copenhagen.
“As you well know from your time in the Senate,” wrote Webb, “only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”
But Senator Webb wrote his letter before the EPA unilaterally declared the government’s right to regulate carbon dioxide.
And so the question must be asked of Senator Webb: Does he believe that the authority of the EPA can substitute for the constitutional authority of the Senate -- authority that he has so courageously defended?
Radical Environmentalism Is “The New Socialism”
Columnist Charles Krauthammer calls the shake down occurring in Copenhagen and the EPA’s domestic power grab “the new socialism.”
Following the death of the old socialism with the Soviet empire, writes Krauthammer, “the cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is saving the planet.”
And if the question is, “Will the new socialism succeed?” the answer is, “Not if the American people have anything to do with it.”
The American People, United, Will Never Be Defeated
Last year, the “drill here, drill now” movement succeeded in removing both the executive and legislative bans on drilling offshore to capture American energy [www.americansolutions.com/drill].
The American people’s success in “drill here, drill now” opened up a national conversation on freeing America from dependence on foreign dictators for our oil. Americans began to understand and believe that We Have the Power (see Callista’s and my movie on energy of the same name) to safely develop our own energy reserves and technology to achieve energy independence.
The Rule of Law
In May of 2010 Congressman Gingrich appeared on The Hannity Show and spoke about the need for the rule of law to apply in a free society to protect the weak.
The Palmetto Freedom Forum
In August of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum, which was a discussion on the Constitution and numerous political issues. He spoke at lenght on his view about the branches of government and check and balances.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.
References
[1] Website: The American View Article: Exclusive “American View” Interview: Newt Gingrich On Abortion, Homosexuality, Biblical Government; Author: NA Accessed on: 05/14/2011