The Cherokee Nation, or There are reasons for the separation of powers. Newt Gingrich is one of them.
Submitted by Loyal Yank on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 08:56Newt Gingrich supports the arrest and congressional interrogation of federal judges whose decisions conflict with the other branches of government. Gingrich explicitly stated this on his recent appearance of Face the Nation.
Here is a notorious example of the dangerous precedent such an imbalance can cause:
‘The white men who manned the (postwar) U.S. Army trading posts gave assurances that the Indians’ rights to their own lands were absolute. But those lands kept shrinking as the whites moved westward. When they came into the lands beyond the mountains and down into the Mississippi delta they knew what they wanted their West to look like: an empire of cotton, not an Indian camp ground. So in 1830 the great cotton states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia outlawed the tribal kingdoms, and President Jackson pushed a bill through Congress ordering all the Indian tribes, whether farmers or hunters, peaceable or hostile, to move west of the Mississippi. And they started to move away, the Choctaws, the Creeks, and the Chickasaws. There was a brave pause while the Cherokees appealed to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall upheld their claim that there was no constitutional right to remove them from their ancestral lands. Jackson called this decision “too preposterous,” and, in what is surely one of the most shameless and arbitrary acts of an American President, he simply ignored the Supreme Court and ordered the army to “get them out”. And so, in what is truly called “the trail of tears,” thirty thousand Cherokees were persuaded or chained, gently led or viciously driven, as far west as Oklahoma, and along the way a quarter of them died.’
- - Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke’s America, 1973. pp 168-170
There are reasons for the separation of powers. Newt Gingrich is one of them.
The bottom line is we voters
The bottom line is we voters keep electing tyrants over and over. At the end of the day history is written by those in control. Hopefully Ron Paul will change that fact for the better when he is elected. A vote for any of the establishment candidates is a vote for war with Iran.
Thank you ...
...for this post, and thank you to all who are taking time to comment. I am learning so much history.
I am new here, and I have been so impressed with the quality of the discourse. I appreciate the respect with which folks here express opposing views without insulting others.
Very impressive.
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” – Goethe
Andrew Jackson's unconstitutional "baggage"
I've never responded over the many years of "love-fest" here on the DP regarding the man and president, Andrew Jackson. But, I despise much of his wicked legacy.
I am a student of Florida history. I have long known of the vicious and unconstitutional campaign led by Jackson across the Florida panhandle from 1817 to 1821.
Knowingly and in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution he invaded the sovereign territory of Spain and laid waste to the Spanish government in Pensacola. There was no declaration of war, but President Monroe gave him a covert mandate to go ahead with the invasion.
Subsequently, Jackson and his forces burned houses and crops of Seminole tribes, massacring every Seminole in his way, including women and children, across a swath of hundreds of miles of Spain's territory of northern Florida.
It directly led to Spain ceding Florida to the U.S.A. in 1821. Despite the disgraceful "collateral damage," he was deemed a hero of the First Seminole War and elected president in 1829.
During his presidency he struck down all challenges by the states regarding nullification initiatives. BTW, he owned more than 400 slaves during his lifetime.
And, as about the only thing you read about him here on the DP, he also fought against the central bank.
Individuals can hurt individuals
But it takes a big government to practice organized disenfranchisement, persecution, imprisonment, exile, and genocide against its own citizens. Let's look at our government's historical hit list:
Indians
Blacks
Religious groups
Japanese Americans
Political Blacklisting
I'm sure I missed a few, but you get the idea.
But now everybody is equally treated as guilty until proven innocent! Patriot Act, Warrant-less searches, wire tapping, detentions, TSA, and giving the US Military police powers. (Or is it the police that are given military powers? it's hard for me to tell.)
Whether its judges, Congress, or the President, all have forgotten the spirit and intent of Bill of Rights and their duty to uphold and preserve them.
Conscience does not exist if not exercised
"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin
Pretty much the same attitude
Gingrich would ignore rulings he didn't like. Like someone who successfully fights the NDAA and gets it struck down. Gingrich would ignore it and have the Judge arrested, interrogated, and jailed as an enemy combatant.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
In other words The Gingrich
In other words The Gingrich openly admits himself as the enemy of the Constitution.
The Newt wants to:
• eliminate checks and balances
• eliminate the independence of the judiciary
• make the coequal branches of the government unequal.
The Newt wants to overturn the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
Perhaps instead of arresting judges willing to uphold the Constitution and strike down unconstitutional laws, it may be more sensisble and Constitutionally consistent to arrest legislators who pass laws against the Constitution and executive who enforce unconstitutitonal laws and acts.
They all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but nearly all of them violate that oath with impunity.
Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl
Andrew Jackson
was quite snarky. At least he hated the central bank and killed it.
Yes, Gingrich would take full advantage of this and no doubt turn into a dictator. He would have started detaining and assassinating people before the ink on NDAA was even dry. We wouldn't even by blogging right now, because the internet would be off.
The band W.A.S.P. wrote a
The band W.A.S.P. wrote a great song about this titled "Trail of Tears".
there are few things that make me feel . . .
more troubled than to hear about the 'tail of tears'--
How on earth can this nation expect the blessings of God?
:(
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
We begin with ourselves
We begin with ourselves... clean up our own spiritual act. This changes our moral behaviour. In turn, our new behaviour improves our society.
Look how Christ wept over Jerusalem. Look how he condemned the leaders of his day, yet showed compassion to the individual, especially the 'fringe' of society. Today, you might refer to this as 'liberation theology' or 'disability theology', which I am particularly interested in.
The USA might not indeed receive God's blessings; but look around, you are indeed still most richly blessed compared to so many places in the world. Although an American, living in the UK for 22 years has made me appreciate this more than ever.
Do not despair. Jesus would have voted for RON PAUL!
not despairing, but I appreciate . . .
your words--
:)
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
Half my family is Cherokee,
Half my family is Cherokee, so I've heard this story more than once. I agree with conflating Gingrich's smug, idealistic dictatorship with the acts of those working outside the law throughout Cherokee history, but I think the problem is with territory. Community(the Cherokee community in this case)is people, not territory. The state is a monopoly on territory, so it grows out of proportion, and doesn't stop, because it is there to protect the interests of land cartels. Land was free before colonialism, so the development on the land was freely executed. The use of land, homesteading of land and other actions defined occupancy, but not ownership, and absentee contracts were unheard of until the interests of slave owners became prevalent within the system.
enjoy reading your thoughts . . .
about territory.
There is something terribly 'messed up' about the ways it is done 'now'--
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
Yeah, the tears of a clown.
Yeah, the tears of a clown.
(Newt's trail to the Whitehouse that is. Darn this interface.)
Life on the reservation......
May I humbly suggest a video for further current reflection on this topic: Russell Means, "Welcome to the reservation".
Google it.
We're all in this together folks.
Ron Paul - is my President -
END THE WAR'S'
thanks for posting. ill check
thanks for posting. ill check this out
You are comparing Gingrich's
You are comparing Gingrich's comments about judges to Federal government treatment of American Indians? This makes absolutely no sense.
Support freedom and liberty candidates in 2012... Ron Paul... Gary Johnson...
Pretty clear to me.
"There was a brave pause while the Cherokees appealed to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall upheld their claim that there was no constitutional right to remove them from their ancestral lands. Jackson called this decision “too preposterous,” and, in what is surely one of the most shameless and arbitrary acts of an American President, he simply ignored the Supreme Court and ordered the army to “get them out”."
So Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the claim of the Cherokees and Jackson simply didn't like the decision and did it anyway. No he didn't throw him into jail, but the true problem lies in the lack of checks and balances or the ignoring of them. Not that we don't have that problem now.
As usual the explanation is clear, but as your history shows, throwing rocks into cogs for the sake of arguing is what you do best.
The only real and lasting
The only real and lasting "check and balances" that will work are the ones that are decentralized. The people of each county having control over the Land and resources within that county as well as the making Laws within that county is a good direction for Individual Liberty. There are many state constitutions which have "home rule" sections that allow counties and even cities to separate from the state in their decision making. The more local control communities have the more Liberty is expressed. There are over 3000 counties currently in America which would allow for a lot of experimentation with social constructs so that we can find the best model to emulate.
Whenever there is, in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on......Thomas Jefferson
Comment above...
...by walkerwire is my sentiment exactly.
Why Not?
Gingrich is advocating placing his own judgment as to the law above that of the supreme court's. The OP gives a historical example of why such abandonment of constitutional rule of law could quickly lead to tyranny and tragedy.
Makes perfect sense to me.
My Pro Liberty Blog: http://WalkerWire.com
Yes, but he's just
Yes, but Newt is just bloviating. He's not the president and he's made no progress toward what he's boasting about. Not the same thing at all.
In the cases cited by the poster, these things actually happened. Let's assume Grinch became president... he'd still be stymied by the law and certain lawsuits that would follow.
I understand the original thread trying to link two "wrong-headed" things, but it is a very weak link.
Support freedom and liberty candidates in 2012... Ron Paul... Gary Johnson...
Most don't understand the
Most don't understand the mindset of the people at that time. I am a descendant of Pres. Jackson's sis-in-law, Jane Donelson Hays (Rachel Jackson's sis). Jane was one of Col. John Donelson's children. Donelson was one of the original settlers of Nashville with James Robertson; settled Ft. Nashborough. He was killed by Indians on one of his flatboat trips into the wilderness. I don't know what tribe or why it occurred but it obviously became a serious issue for Pres. Jackson. At that time, there was a lot of fear of the natives because of the Indian attacks that occurred. Sadly, the culture clashes led to the forced removal of all native Americans regardless of whether they were warring or peaceful tribes. With the paradigm shift, it's hard to imagine doing anything like that today (maybe isolation of Arabs). Like most Americans today, I am descended from both Cherokee and European Americans and can see how ignorance played a role many moons ago. I don't see Andrew Jackson as a monster but he shouldn't have let the death of his father-in-law guide his emotions. I do admire his stance though on the central bank; he stood firm on that but if he was trying to ignore the rule of law, that's not good. I haven't done a thorough study of President Jackson. But he was a product of his time. People were blazing the trails to settle this country. It wasn't just about Jackson. And with the Indian attacks going on, it gave all natives a bad name. Whereas because whites were moving in on their lands, it gave all whites a bad name. It's better to look at the past and learn so as not to repeat it.
interesting the parallel you make between--
the native Americans in the 1800s (and before) and the "Arabs" or Muslims (Iran isn't Arabic, of course)--in the 2000,
very interesting--
emotionalism often not based in fact.
If it's true that many of those native Americans with whom Andrew Jackson chose to deal had ancestors slaughtered by the early colonials, then we have . . .--
blowback.
Blowback starting the 'moment' the English pilgrims set foot on shore--
almost.
And now, with native Americans (or their descendants) living in sick houses on reservations, "Americans" need someone to meddle with--
so . . . start with Iran in 1953, and 60 years later . . .
Americans 'hate' Muslims.
I didn't need to extrapolate it out that far; I wrote it out to see if it made sense; call it aging.
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
we seem to have it in our blood
to occupy peoples land, exploit their resources, then kill them for fighting back as if it is all their fault. Even when I was a kid in grade school and they would teach about how the Spanish, French, English etc. laid claim to new found land I questioned if there weren't already people on that land, guess some people just think differently.
Ron Paul or no one at all.
off point...
but it kills me when "scientist" go to various countries and "discover" new animals and make a huge ordeal out if it..as if humans have gained some hidden knowledge. The locals have known of these animals for centuries, if not longer, and yet these self gratifying boobs go in and "discover" what has been known for centuries.
Irritates me to no end.
exactly!
Looks like you think differently too
Ron Paul or no one at all.
It was an obvious
Invasion and Occupation of a sovereign land. Our government was wrong then as it is now. But you're correct, AJ was a product of his time.
I always wondered why the native indians hadn't advanced as much as the Europeans who ended up taking over this country.
Nobody has ever been able to answer it for me.
I understand that our Constitution and
many of the founding principles were influenced by the enlightened ideas of governance held by the Iroquois confederacy. Of course some tribes were more sophisticated than others, just as was true of European nations.
Another thought: Rose Wilder Lane traces, in her Discovery of Freedom, the influence of authoritarian culture in retarding societal developments, vs the explosion of ideas and technology in those few rare areas where the cult of obedience to authority was most challenged.
advanced? I believe the Cherokees were quite . . .
advanced. But what, then, does 'advancement' mean? The ability to kill with sophistication? I am assuming you were writing somewhat 'tongue in cheek' and am responding in that spirit--
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--