A GREAT CIVICS LESSON

I hope everybody has made it a point to watch the confirmation proceedings. This has been a great lesson on our Constitution and the roles of the different branches of government. The nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, is not only brilliant, but her ability to express in terms easily understood, exhibit why she was such an outstanding professor.
 
What Judge Barrett has made clear is that she views the role of the court as the role that the court was intended to perform. Judge Barrett has consistently stated that the role of policy making lies with the elected branches of government, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. She has made clear that the role of the judicial branch is strictly reactive and is not to make policy.
 
What also is clear is that the Democrats want the role of the court to change. The Democrats now oppose the court simply being an impartial referee, but they want the court to become a major participant in the game. This is not the intended role for the court and the more the court assumes the role advocated by the Democrats, the less power or authority the people have.
 
The Democrats have concentrated on three policies and the religion of the Judge. The three policies are abortion, gay marriage, and health care. Abortion and gay marriage are not the constitutional law of the land. Both of these policies are considered to be the law, but they are opinions of the court. This is how the Democrats wish to make policy as opposed to play their proper role of voting on issues to become law.
 
The health issue falls along the same line. The court, namely Chief Justice Roberts, played not only the role of judge, but also assumed the role of God. The constitutionality of the ACA hinged on whether or not penalty meant penalty or tax. The law clearly stated penalty. The proponents clearly stated penalty. If it were penalty, the law would have to be declared not to be constitutional. If it were a tax, it could be construed to be constitutional. Judge Roberts unilaterally decided that in fact the writers of the law meant tax because he could play the role of God and knew what was really intended.
 
The question of religion was a major topic. At issue is what does “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” mean. The answer is quite simple. It means that, unlike Great Britain who had the Anglican Church as its established religion, our government could not have an established religion. Many of the colonies had established religions. In addition, the government could not restrict individuals from practicing the religion of their choice.
 
The courts have violated this First Amendment. They have established the religion of secularism as our national religion by limiting the free exercise of individuals to practice their religion. The courts have ruled that if the free exercise of Christianity or the Jewish religion in any way offends the secularist, the rights of the secularist will always prevail.
 
Yes, we have had a lesson in civics. This hearing should have been required for all middle school, high school, and college level students. I would also strongly recommend it to all Americans, especially attorneys and judges.