Gingrich's plan for America

[Lamplighter]

OK.
I came upon Gingrich's "Plan for America" several weeks ago, and have been
surprised that Issue # 9 has not received attention in the media, or by Dwellars.

It is extreme and frightening, but fits with some Conservatives' view of the "Universal President".
Was it Nixon or Cheney or who(?) that said something like: "If the President says it's lawful, it is legal."
So they would believe the corollary.

But Gingrich certainly is being explicit.
I don't think he published this just for the enjoyment of the far right.
I suspect that if elected, he could/would claim it as a "mandate".
.

[Griff]

I'd like to assume the American people can be rallied against obvious attacks like this but they let everyone from Truman to Bush slide on aspects of checks and balances. Maybe they want a dictator to restore their national pride... there is a lot of precedent for that as well. Didn't Paul confront Gingrich on this? That may be why the press ignores it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Was it Nixon or Cheney or who(?) that said something like: "If the President says it's lawful, it is legal."

That was how Nixon justified Watergate. It was probably a last straw that caused many Nixon extremists to consider backing away from the President. It eventually made possible a vote for his impeachment.

Yes, Cheney also used that reasoning. Justified by 'findings' that said even torture was good and acceptable. Unfortunately, many Americans also agreed, without doubt, with Cheney.

What has changed? Our extremists in government are greater in numbers, power, and gall.

Back during Watergate, this 'Imperial Presidency' is why Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren demanded a unanimous vote against Nixon. He worried that even an 8-1 vote would encourage the military to move against the court on orders from Nixon. Many forget back then how much concern existed for overt challenges to Constitutional law. "Imperial Presidency' was part of a larger fear. The Supreme Court had to consider even (least likely) alternatives such as a military occupation of the Supreme Court. Because Nixon's "Imperial Presidency" said a president's 'findings' were automatic laws.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Back during Watergate, this 'Imperial Presidency' is why
Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren demanded a unanimous vote against Nixon.
He worried that even an 8-1 vote would encourage the military to move against the court on orders from Nixon.

The Warren Court refers to the SCOTUS between 1953 & 1969, when Warren served as Chief Justice which
expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power dramatically.

Warren retired in '69 long before Watergate. In fact he passed away a month before Nixon "resigned."
Warren had nothing to do with "demanding anything relative to Nixon and Watergate.
The only unanimous decisions he demanded were regarding segregation.

His comments on watergate ...

If Nixon is not forced to turn over tapes of his conversations with the ring of men
who were conversing on their violations of the law, then liberty will soon be dead in this nation.
If Nixon gets away with that, then Nixon makes the law as he goes along — not the Congress nor the courts.
The old Court you and I served so long will not be worthy of its traditions if Nixon can twist,
turn and fashion the law as he sees fit.