Have you read the recent article about Newt Gingrich and his quite unexpected rant about federal judges? Don’t get me wrong. I am not an automatic fan of every member of the judicial branch of government any more than I am of the legislative or executive branches. People must earn my respect.

By and large, Newt has done that on a number of fronts. First of all, I submit he did a pretty decent job as House Speaker back in the ‘90’s. And, when you listen to what he says during the various GOP presidential debates, it’s obvious Gingrich has the mental horsepower, the experience and the technical knowledge that is needed to be a competent President.

However, on the other side of the coin, I am not going to stereotype to the extent that I basically tar an entire branch of federal government merely because I vociferously disagree with some of its members. Not all federal judges are cut from the same cloth any more than can be said for the executive or legislative branches.

This is not even the real issue. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created our form of government. Each of the three branches exists to ensure the other two don’t misbehave. This is based on each being not only separate from the others but also possessing no more and no less power than either of the others.

Great attention was paid to the excesses of the British king that led to the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War. Our nation’s creators knew they did not want an overly powerful chief executive. It’s a sad fact that royalty, standing alone, is not synonymous with liberty. By memorializing the road map for our federal government in our sacred Constitution, protection was built in to ensure our new government would work as well in practice as it appeared on paper.

Speaker Gingrich has proposed some rather outrageous solutions, should he disagree with any federal judge as our 45th President. Federal judges are each appointed for life. Only impeachment, retirement or death can remove a federal judge from their duties, once the Senate confirms a presidential nomination. Unlike most state court judges, they will never face an election.

But, is the proper solution to reining in a so-called activist judge sending the Capitol police or U.S. Marshal’s office to arrest them? Newt, please articulate the needed probable cause. And, pardon my cynicism, but who is overseeing the overseers? Please describe the safeguard.

Tell us why this isn’t just plain unconstitutional. In the event you don’t agree, let’s approach this from another direction. What power would any federal judge or member of Congress have to arrest the President simply because they disagree with his political philosophy? Now, carry that through to its logical extreme. Wouldn’t congressional conservatives have already repeatedly arrested the current guy in the White House? Subjectively tempting or not, it’s still unlawful.

We should thank God our nation is a nation of laws and not one subjected to the whims and caprices of men. Pardon my skepticism, Mr. Speaker. But, your suggestion is nothing short of frightening to anyone who has taken an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I for one urge you to rethink this cockamamie idea. Please?

Martin C. Brhel, Jr.