“It can’t possibly be true that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a very elaborate, complex process of amending the Constitution and said, however, that if the Supreme Court is split 4-to-4 between liberals and conservatives, and Justice Kennedy gets up in the morning, he becomes a one-person Constitutional Convention. If he gets up and he feels conservative that day, it must be a conservative Constitution. If he gets up and he feels liberal that day, it must be a — this is an absurdity foisted on us in 1958 by a historic lie.  There is no judicial supremacy.  It does not exist in the American Constitution.”  – Newt Gingrich at the Values Voters Summit on October 7, 2011.In the tradition of The Founding Fathers, another great all American speech by Newt Gingrich.  This man can be the best President since Abraham Lincoln, that is of course if Americans snap out of their ‘American Idol’ mentality and get serious about putting a real qualified leader in the Office.

But Newt is not alone here on this issue.  he has plenty of company and what company it is!  Please read on to see some surprising statements from these very qualified and very renowned experts:

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.     (Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861)

“The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.”   (President Jackson’s Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States, July 10, 1832)

Jefferson warned that “the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary, an irresponsible body…working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.”  (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to C. Hammond, 1820, in the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls 1900) (P. 131))

Jefferson was quite clear about the absurdity of claims to judicial supremacy: “You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”   (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820, in the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls 1900) (P. 845)

During one of his famous Fireside Chats in March 1937, Roosevelt laid out his vision of a court with dramatically scaled down powers:  I want – as all Americans want – an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power – in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the of facts which are universally recognized… During the past half-century the balance of power between the three great branches of the federal government has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance. You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed. You and I will do our part.     (FDR’s Fireside Chat on the Reorganization of the Judiciary, March 9, 1937)

As Justice Roberts has remarked, “the rule of law is not the rule of lawyers.” One of the most basic principles of the rule of law is that we as a people are governed by laws not by men (or judges)and thus no one – not even a judge – is above the law. An independent judiciary is an important protection of the rule of law, but judicial independence does not mean judicial supremacy – it does not mean that judges can never be held accountable for their judgments or that the American people are powerless to correct the decisions – however extreme and unfounded — of five appointed lawyers.   Unfortunately, the federal judiciary operates today on precisely that mistaken assumption and the legislative and executive branches have been far too reluctant to challenge it. For too long the Supreme Court has abused the trust reposed in it by the American people and subtly converted the principles of the rule of the law and judicial independence into a theory of judicial supremacy. It is time for the people’s elected representatives to reassert their co-equal role in the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution and to check the
pretensions of the judicial branch.

“Evidently, the governing standard is to be what might be called the unfettered wisdom of a majority of this Court, revealed to an obedient people on a case-by-case basis. This is not only not the government of laws that the Constitution established; it is not a government at all.”   (SOURCE: Justice Antonin Scalia (1988)  Morrison v. Olson, 487 US 654, 712 (1988) (Scalia, dissenting on the grounds that the executive’s powers were usurped by the appointment of independent counsel under the Independent Counsel Act

See Complete Documentation at




Download PDF