Newt’s Obama Impeachment Stunt

February 26th, 2011 at 6:12 am David Frum | 64 Comments |

| Print

Skill-testing question for constitutional conservatives.

Suppose you are an elected official. Congress enacts a law you regard as unconstitutional. What do you do?

Well if the law is the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, the answer is clear. You refuse to enforce the unconstitutional thing.

Yes, the Supreme Court will have the final say. But you too have a constitutional duty, do you not?

So if you are the governor of Alaska, you announce you will refuse to answer the unconstitutional thing.

Ditto if you are the governor of Florida.

If you are the lower house of the Idaho state legislature, you vote 49-20 to nullify the bill.

Eleven other states have had similar nullification measures introduced into their legislatures: Indiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.

But – BUT! – everything changes if the law is the Defense of Marriage Act, and the officeholder in question is President Obama. In that case, you are constitutionally obliged to set aside your own judgment and defend the law to the end.

He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.”

Asked by Newsmax directly whether Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA in court constituted an impeachable offense, Gingrich hedged:

I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand.

At a minimum, Obama’s refusal could thrust the country into a “constitutional crisis.”

So, clear? If it’s DOMA, Congress decides what’s constitutional, and the president must salute. If it’s Obamacare, the governors and state legislatures decide what’s constitutional. (And I suppose the president must salute again.)

Newsmax did not ask Newt Gingrich whether a President Gingrich would be obliged to defend and enforce Obamacare. That’s a question to which it would be very, very interesting to hear an answer.


Recent Posts by David Frum



64 Comments so far ↓

  • mikewaz

    Yes, they can defend DOMA without defending ObamaCares. How? It’s easy. They just have to be completely insincere and hypocritical about upholding the Constitution.

  • hisgirlfriday

    This article mentions that both Reagan and George H.W. Bush refused to defend laws they thought were unconstitutional.

    http://volokh.com/2011/02/23/do-presidents-have-a-duty-to-defend-the-constitutionality-of-laws-they-believe-to-be-unconstitutional/

    I also don’t think an executive not enforcing/defending a law in light of his or her oath to the constitution is the same thing as a legislature passing a nullification bill (I thought the Civil War settled this nullification crap).

    • Nanotek

      hisgirlfriday@”This article mentions that both Reagan and George H.W. Bush refused to defend laws they thought were unconstitutional.”

      hisgirlfriday … you beat me to it … lol

    • ottovbvs

      Another one of Gingrich’s constitutional crises? Or was it DF’s. In practice I’m sure there’s a long history of presidents exercising this sort of benign neglect over legislation that is politically inconvenient for one reason or another. Only Gingrich would start talking about impeachmemt later. I have to applaud DF for poking a hole in this latest bit of Republicn hypocrisy. They’ve raised it to an art form.

    • Rossg

      In the Land of Oz known as Republicangia, everything is fixed, unless you disagree with the matter at hand.

  • Nanotek

    Equally, Chief Justice John Roberts, acting as Solicitor General in 1990, convinced President Bush I to not defend federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing, a law Bush had signed. Roberts lost at the Supreme Court, 5-4, but was rewarded for his efforts when Bush II made him Chief Justice. For the same thing, Gingrich & crowd are calling for Obama’s impeachment. IOKIYR

    conservative rationales never reach an honest mark

  • ottovbvs

    DF: you of all people should know conservative principles are infinitely flexible. Conservatives never stop talking about freedom but are happily applauding an attempt by the governor of WI to remove or curtail public employees freedom to bargain collectively. Unions are an association just like industry bodies, political front groups receiving secret contributions, or bridge clubs, that come together to promote their own interests but according to conservatives, union’s activities should be restricted while those these others should not. It’s no accident that unions are the first thing dictators from Mussolini to Mubarak shut down when they get power. I realise unions exercise a degree of quasi monopoly power (as do corporate oligopolies) and this creates problems but the principle is clear as in this case of laws that are deemed constitutional and those that are not. Like Scalia’s originalism, for conservatives it depends on what day of the week it is.

  • Houndentenor

    The question here is simple: should the government waste taxpayer money defending a case they know they can’t win? DOMA is unconstitutional. The federal government has no constitutional authority to ignore marriage licenses issued by the states. None. If DOMA is upheld it nullifies every tenther argument. Will conservatives justices risk that? I doubt it. The moderate justices will see through the animus of the 1996 law. DOMA is doomed in the courts. So why is the right screaming about defending it?

    • chicago_guy

      Why? Because they know that they still need the financial support that comes from the residents of various Hootervilles around the country. Recognizing that marriage equality in this country is a forgone conclusion is an elitist position, you know…

  • Rob_654

    Nothing like asking Newt Gingrich’s opinion on Defending Marriage…

  • talkradiosucks.com

    mikewaz saved me the trouble.

  • dante

    Also, as was noted on…. Dylan Ratigan show(?) last night, the press release stated that “Obama will not defend DOMA in court…. They will FULLY ENFORCE THE LAW until it is repealed by congress or overturned by the courts.”

    It’s literally in the DOJ press release. The conservatives are trying to pretend that Obama is not going to *enforce* it, which is a straight-up lie.

  • Emanuelle

    Everybody knows Obama hates marriage. After all he’s only been married once whereas Newt has been three times.

  • midcon

    ottovbvs wrote: In practice I’m sure there’s a long history of presidents exercising this sort of benign neglect over legislation that is politically inconvenient for one reason or another.

    Exactly! It has been consistently done by every Administration since this nation was born and you can find concrete examples throughout our history of this. Even signing statements fall into this category that are not constitutional and has been in use since the 1940s by every administration.

    Whether DOMA is unconstitutional is a decision for SCOTUS. The administration has no obligation to expend resources to defend it and it should stand or fall on its own merits.

    I grow weary of homegrown constitutional scholars who purport to know what was in the minds of the founders. Even John Adams signed the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen of 1798 which taxed every merchant seaman for health care and if I am not mistaken, John Adams was one of the founders and the members of Congress who passed the act included many of the founders.

    What every happened to the adults in the GOP? Have all the rational folks abandon the party? Aren’t there any remaining?

  • ProfNickD

    Remember that oath that Obahblah made on January 20th, 2009? You know, the one where he said he would “faithfully execute” federal law?”

    I realize that everything he says has an expiration date but this is one promise he made, literally, under oath.

    To execute the law is his job. That’s it. That’s what Presidents do. If he doesn’t want to do it, if he’d rather golf, watch the game, have Motown entertainers jivin’ and shuckin’ around the White House, then he need to be removed from office.

    Impeachment is a perfectly legitimate Constitutional mechanism to apply to Presidents who don’t want to do their job.

  • kriszti

    ProfNickD – do you just not read the posts that come before yours? Which part do you not understand?

    ““Obama will not defend DOMA in court…. They will FULLY ENFORCE THE LAW until it is repealed by congress or overturned by the courts.””

  • Houndentenor

    I am not about to be lectured about marriage by a guy who is on wife #3 and cheated on the first two of them.

    And if wants to hold impeachment hearings on Obama while we are still struggling to get the economy back on its feet, that will be the death knell for GOP chances in 2012.

    Have these people completely lost their minds?

  • midcon

    I’ve been waiting for NickD’s snappy come back to Kriszti’s comment. Guess I’ll be waiting for a long time.

  • Tempest in a Frumpot

    NickD is just an ignorant troll so why bother reading his trash? This article is precisely why I enjoy Frumforum as much as I do. You can be a principled Conservative and be totally rational at the same time and David Frum is doing as much as anyone to remind people that you can be Conservative and reasonable. There will come a day when the Gingrichs and Palins will be looked upon as the clowns they are and I think that day is not too far off (at least I hope and pray it is so)

    • ottovbvs

      Don’t feed the trolls, I occasionally make the mistake of engaging them, but it’s a waste of time always. Much better to let them talk to themselves which I assume they spend a fair amount of time doing anyway.

  • JonF

    What the deuce has happened to Newt Gingrich? He was always conceited, yes, and apt to overplay his hand. But he used to have a good head on his shoulders, and even had some ideas worth listening to. Of late though he’s been dog-paddling his way into the fever swamps of far right numb-skullery. Someone should get him to a doctor for a thorough check-up.

  • pnumi2

    Professor

    If you are an unabashed African American hater such as you seem to be, I suppose “jivin’ and shuckin’ around the White House with Motown entertainers” could constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”. At least in the racist pig sty you call home.

  • ProfNickD

    Kristzi said,

    Obama will not defend DOMA in court…. They will FULLY ENFORCE THE LAW until it is repealed by congress or overturned by the courts

    (Sigh.)

    By the inane statement you made, I don’t think you understand even what DOMA is. Or what “execute” means.

    DOMA simply permits states if they choose to exempt themselves from the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution in instances of lawful same-sex marriages from other states. (Perhaps you should look what the clause means — it would be entirely too long a post to explain.)

    So, if a same-sex couple that has been lawfully married in another state cannot have their marriage accepted in the state in which they reside, the couple would do two things: first, sue in federal court to overturn DOMA. If the Solicitor General (again, look this up) will not defend DOMA then DOMA is overturned in that federal district court’s jurisdiction.

    Since no party is defending it, the same-sex couple will win a default judgment (again,look up).

    This is what it means to execute the law — to apply the law, to defend it in court where challenged, thus ensuring the law’s integrity. No other party has standing (look up) to defend federal laws in court.

    Second, the couple then would sue their own state in a state court for failing to recognize their lawful marriage. They will win this lawsuit because DOMA now doesn’t exist for their state to exempt itself from recognizing the couple’s marriage.

    Oh, and the federal court’s decision cannot be appealed because, again, no one has standing to appeal.

    So, gradually — perhaps not all at once — every state will be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage because same-sex couples will initiate suits everywhere and the administration evidently won’t defend the law in court.

    Sounds impeachable to me — what if every administration did this? What if the administration of President Palin in 2014 refuses to defend the Health Care Affordability Act in federal court?

    I hope you appreciate the fact that I’m not even going to charge you for this lesson.

    • Kevin B

      So DOMA allows states to opt out of the US Constitution?

      • ProfNickD

        Kevin,

        Good question — yes, it purports to do so, which is probably why the Supreme Court would eventually declare it unconstitutional.

        But it hasn’t done so, and it won’t be able to do so because since the administration won’t defend it in court it cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.

        • jwmorris

          DOMA has 3 sections. Section 2 refers to whether states can ignore marriages from other states. The DOJ is still planning to defend section 2.
          Section 3 is whether the federal government should or should not accept a state’s marriage license in all cases for FEDERAL purposes. The federal government has always accepted each state’s issuance of marriage licenses. This is the section the DOJ will not defend, but continue to enforce. Section 3 has already been found unconstitutional in 3 states (which DOJ defended). The federal government does not have to keept defending something the DOJ has decided can not be defended.
          It is not an impeachable offense. In fact, it not any kind of offense at all!

  • zachsteph

    Clearly the Prof teaches something other than the law… I am not sure what you are supposed to be a professor of but I hope your students get a refund! Congress, and individual congressmen, have standing to defend any law it passes without the DoJ – look it up – (or as you say Prof…look up – I wasn’t clear what you wanted us all to look up to/at).

    • ottovbvs

      “I am not sure what you are supposed to be a professor”

      In his dreams perhaps? I’d always assumed it was a courtesy title like Ghadaffi is a “Doctor.”

  • itzik basman

    Very small point: Gingrich being married three times has nothing to do with anything and resorting to that diminshes the arguments to be made against him. Here his opportunistic silliness speaks for itself, and as nicely eviscerated by Frum.

    • Nanotek

      itzik basman@”Very small point: Gingrich being married three times has nothing to do with anything and resorting to that diminishes the arguments to be made against him. Here his opportunistic silliness speaks for itself, and as nicely eviscerated by Frum.”

      itzik basman — I disagree to the extent that, presumably, when he stood to marry, Gingrich took an oath to his god and each wife, in turn, to love and honor them until death parted them. And then he cheated on them. At this point, his affairs and marriages have everything to do with his credibility. But I might be wrong.

    • ottovbvs

      “Gingrich being married three times has nothing to do with anything”

      Except his ability to preach sermons on the sanctity of marriage perhaps?

  • pnumi2

    Professor and sidekick Newt

    If you like dereliction of duty and chief executives not enforcing the laws of Congress, you probably love the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

    Granted there was no diddling cuties of the same sex, but there was was property that used to be yours, that wasn’t yours any more

    “In 1843, several hundred slaves a year successfully escaped to the North, making slavery an unstable institution in the border states.”

    The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intention of enforcing Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.

    Some Northern states passed “personal liberty laws”, mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved. Otherwise, they feared free blacks could be kidnapped into slavery. Other states forbade the use of local jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of such fugitives. In some cases, juries simply refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law. Moreover, locals in some areas actively fought attempts to seize fugitives and return them to the South. And everywhere that was not tied with slavery, abolitionists spoke against this.

    The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free. The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master’s consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.

    After 1840, the black population of rural Cass County, Michigan, grew rapidly as families were attracted by white defiance of discriminatory laws, by numerous highly supportive Quakers, and by low-priced land. Free and runaway blacks found Cass County a haven. Their good fortune attracted the attention of southern slaveholders. In 1847 and 1849, planters from Bourbon and Boone Counties in northern Kentucky led raids into Cass County to recapture runaway slaves. The raids failed of their objective but strengthened Southern demands for passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.”

    Why don’t you add up all the Presidents who really didn’t enforce the Fugitive Slave Act as vigorously as you and Newt would have?

    Admit it, Professor, the only impeachable crime Obama has committed in the ‘Book of Prof Nick,’ is the crime of being a black man in the Oval Office.

    • ProfNickD

      pu,

      Did you just cite Wikipedia?

      • pnumi2

        PND

        Why, yes I did. I didn’t know you travelled around to the big word web sites. I almost used a Seseme Street citation. If there’s anything you disagree with let me know and I’ll find it for you at Oxford or Columbia or even at the Gingrich College of Ludicrous Knowledge.

        To recapitulate, it’s your position that the President should commit the resources of the Federal Government to defending a Congressional Law which is on its way to the SCOTUS where it has a 50 – 50 chance of being declared unconstitutional.

        This oppossed to standing aside and letting the High Court know what his opinion of the law is.
        And enforcing it if it gets the obligatory 5 conservative votes.

        And in your mind you conflate this with not calling the National Guard into Little Rock to integrate the high school there in 1957.

  • jakester

    I guess those good Catholic morals are really seeping into Newt

  • ScoopAway

    Is Ken Starr unemployed or something?

    I thought the Republicans were supposed to be concerning themselves with job creation these days.

  • Rob_654

    How many wives has Newt sworn an oath to that he threw away like used tissue?

  • armstp

    I just finished watching the Reagan HBO documentary.

    Two things that were clear out of the Iran-Contra illegal actions.

    Reagan was told before they began funding the illegally funded Contras through illegal sales of arms to Iran that it would be an impeachable offense. Reagan knew what he was doing was illegal and was impeachable well ahead of taking action.

    And at the end of the key meeting of all the key Reagan people to decide how to fund these criminal “freedom fighters” Reagan acknowledged that what he was doing was wrong.

    “Schultz and the White House chief of staff Jim Baker warned that such solicitations could be an “impeachable offense,” and Reagan demanded secrecy, warning, “If such a story gets out, we’ll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House.” ”

    So what happened, why was Reagan not impeached?

    And these asshole conservatives (Gingrich) want to bring-up Obama basically saying he will just sit on this stupid and meaningless wedge issue DOMA law.

  • midcon

    Perhaps this lemming-like headlong rush over the far right cliff is just positioning for 2012. They may feel that they have to go there in order to have a chance at the nomination. If so, it doesn’t say much for the GOP and once the presumptive nomineed is there, will anyone buy a snap back to center and appear moderate for the general election? Further, how do you achieve that without alienating the ones that got you there? The GOP is really in a real quandry. They’ve moved so far right that they’ve conceded the center and can’t even pretend to be moderates.

  • Houndentenor

    Wait wait wait. Didn’t Bush sign several laws and then just refuse to enforce them?

  • WaStateUrbanGOPer

    The notion of Newt Gingrich faulting ANYONE for not defending marriage is simply macabre. The man is toxic, and a huge drag on our political culture. His presence in next year’s primary is going to leave a nasty residue on the eventual GOP nominee.

  • baw1064

    That impeachment thing worked so well for the Republicans the last time Newt tried it.

  • Mannie Davis

    Professor Cornpone strikes again.

  • anniemargret

    “Newt” – a slimy salamander.

    Pretty much nails it.

  • valkayec

    I’m reading Ratification, The People Debate The Constitution 1787 – 1788, by Pauline Maier. In the book, she describes, using letters, published documents and pamphlets to describe the arguments for and against ratification of the basic Constitution, sans Bill of Rights and Amendments.

    There were two basic factions: the Federalist, including Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, and Washington amongst many others who sought a strong federal government which had supremacy over the states. The Anti-Federalists comprised many others who ranged from seeing the Constitution as good but needing a bill of rights that limited federal power while protecting citizen’s rights to those, particularly in the southern states, who only wanted the Confederation changed only slightly to protect the supremacy of the States, not citizen rights, over the federal government, thereby maintaining a weak central government.

    Madison, from Virginia, believed the nation needed a strong federal government and originally was one of the main designers of our current federal system He understood that a weak central government, as existed under the rules and laws of the Confederation, left the various states open to foreign aggression and regional conflict. Only a strong federal government that subordinated States rights to a strong central Federal government could secure the nation from internecine conflict and dissolution.

    After reading many of the arguments by Publius – Hamilton, Madison and Jay – I believe they would, if living today, agree that the country needs an even stronger central, federal government to manage the challenges of this era, because that, essentially, was their argument for a complete revision of the governing structure of the United States as written into the Constitution: the federal government, they believed, needed to meet the challenges of the world environment for the United States to survive and thrive.

    Regardless of my personal feelings about Gingrich and those much like this article’s author, it appears to me that Gingrich, et al, are re-arguing the Federalist vs anti-Federalist stands of 1788 all over again. Note, however, that when the GOP held the executive office, that weak federal argument faded well into silence. It appears, then in modern GOP ideology, that a strong central government is only applicable and wise if dominated by the GOP.

    Is this a partisan issue? Yes. But it is not one based on strong vs limited federal government as it was in the late 18th Century, but rather an argument based solely on party partisanship…to which I reference the original Patriot Act allowing widespread, uncontrolled wiretapping of any citizen’s lines or arrest and detention with habeas corpus or speedy trial, or the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill during which Gingrich and Delay broke the House rules keeping voting open several hours beyond House rules until they “whipped” the votes necessary to pass the $1 Trillion unfunded bill.

    It’s more than unfortunate that Gingrich and his cohorts now choose to play partisan games at the expense of an ill-educated nation. Someone of Gingrich’s educational level should be more historically and ethically honest. I guess, however, that honesty and history don’t enter into his partisan goals any more than do the author of this article.

  • Raskolnik

    I think I am going to start making “Daniels/Thune 2016″ posters and bumper stickers. Is anyone in?

  • mickster99

    Interesting to whom.
    Newt, please go away.
    Holster your ego.
    Please, just go away.
    And take Glenn Beck with you.
    Are all conservatives crazy?
    I think so.

  • pnumi2

    There are several similarities between DOMA and Prohibition in the 20′s. The 18th amendment lasted about 14 years when it was repealed by the 21st, which is how old DOMA is today. Prohibition ran through the Roaring 20′s which ended in a crash. DOMA, which passed in the dot com craze, saw the busting of two bubbles: first, the dot com in 2000 and then the housing bubble in 2008, probably the biggest bubble in the history of Capitalism.

    While the 18th amendment was part of the Constitution, DOMA is merely a Congressional Act whose constitutionality is as yet untested by the Supreme Court.

    Newt thinks Obama is derelict in his duty by not defending DOMA in court.

    I guess Roosevelt was just as guilty for not defending the 18th Amendment from repeal by the 21st.

    • Rossg

      Newt Gingrich is a slimy manipulator of ideas. The best that can be said is that he is disingenuous. Do not all federal officials (senators and reps, especially) take a similar or identical oath? Mr. Gingrich would have his minions believe that all amendments and laws, once ratified and/or put into effect are sacrosanct.

  • Steve D

    “Constitutional crisis?” Bring it on. I’m all for Constitutional crises. I think we should have at least one a year. I’m dead serious: constitutional crises are how we can break up gridlock.

    And I’d like to see Presidents do this a lot more. Any time an undesirable law is challenged, don’t show up in court.

  • WaStateUrbanGOPer

    Raskolnik: I’ll seriously consider your proposal. I’m not ashamed to admit I’ve got a sort of intellectual-cum-political Man Love Crush on Mitch. And, for some reason, Thune doesn’t rub me the wrong way even though he’s something of a religious right figure. Most alumni of the Bible Institue of Los Angeles would be nonstarters to me as candidates, but not Thune. I think it’s his measured temperament. He just seems like he could step right into the presidency and handle the rigors of the job.

  • Raskolnik

    Frankly I don’t know that much about Thune. More than anything else, I like his ability to step back and coolly assess the situation. His very early and public decision not to run in 2012 also speaks volumes. Here is someone that is widely regarded as a leader within the GOP, who has the good sense to know that whoever wins the Republican primary in the current political climate isn’t going to have a snowball’s chance in Hell against Obama in a general election.

    I think one thing that distinguishes legislating from governing is that it is a lot easier to live in a bubble of your own fantasies when you don’t have to worry about the day-to-day effects of your actions (see: Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin). John Thune seems to understand that, which is why I like him even though on paper he’s made some votes I don’t personally agree with. Lindsey Graham, possibly my favorite Senator, has called him a “consensus-builder,” and he (Thune) had the balls to stand in defense of both TARP and earmarks–which shows that he is a pragmatist, who understands how the government actually works in reality as opposed to the fantasies peddled amongst the Tea Party/Koch brothers crowd.

    That is why I think he would make a good addition to the Executive branch, because he has demonstrated that whatever his personal feelings about something, he is able and willing to put that to the side in the interest of good governance and sound policy. Those are the same qualities that made Clinton such an effective President, and it’s something he shares with Daniels. Compared to slimy bottom-feeding filth like Newt… well, you can’t compare them. There is no comparison, no “there” there.

  • Mike Roberts

    Newt Gingrich completely demolished the Pennsylvania college student who attempted to ask the hostile question raising issues of Gingrich’s adultery, three wives, and his hypocrisy in raising Family Values issues.

    Newt Gingrich doesn’t hesitate one second. He is proud of his status, he is proud of his new wife, Callista–and he should be. Was he hypocritical to attempt to impeach Clinton while he himself was involved in an adulterous affair with Callista Besek? Of course. But was he wrong? No. Callista was young (32 when the affair started), blonde, beautiful, presumably fertile. She is exactly who Newt Gingrich should step up to as the new woman of adornment. Callista proves that Newt Gingrich has ambition, had masculine energy, has the ability to be a real commander in chief.

    Obama may get the support of the big-bottomed gray haired fuss budgets who worry about younger women, but those people are mostly Republican and they will vote what Newt SAYS, not what he did. But the real men of America, men of ambition, will quietly respect Newt for going out and getting some young, hot, fertile bed candy. It proves he will assert American interests in foreign policy, not American values. If it serves America’s purpose to take Mexican or Omani or Saudi or Indonesian oil, Newt will take it. Obama would say it is wrong, that invading countries as a modern day expansionist predator nation, a Napoleonic France or a Nazi Germany, is wrong. Newt realizes that America would be feared and respected. Obama stays married to his first wife; Newt seized his opportunities.

    Newt would make America great by taking from the world what belongs to a country with a great military and the will to use it. Newt Gingrich adultery is a sign of Newts FITNESS for Office.

    We are a support group for Callista and Newt. http://www.thirdwives4newt.blogspot.com

    • busboy33

      Newt Gingrich completely demolished the Pennsylvania college student who attempted to ask the hostile question raising issues of Gingrich’s adultery, three wives, and his hypocrisy in raising Family Values issues.

      Really? Because “You’re a meanie and what I actually do doesn’t matter to Americans.” hardly sounds like “demolishing” to me. “Redirect and dodge”, maybe.

  • The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Constitution Doesn't Just Mean Whatever the Supreme Court Says

    [...] not for constitutionalism but judicial tyranny. This is a mistaken view of the Constitution that completely undercuts the constitutional challenges to Obamacare while implying Roe v. Wade is totally legitimate. [...]