The left has been on a crusade to delegitimize the Supreme Court since it has started to return us to a Constitutionally based government, with claims of the court taking away people’s rights, then pointing to “rights” nowhere found in the Constitution, but rather to “rights” created by earlier courts under an assumed power to determine what, in the view of five justices of those courts, liberty as used in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment required. This practice allowed five justices to change the basic relationship between the states and the federal government and between the people and their governments at all levels. The return to constitutionally based governance has driven the left to greater and greater frenzy. The recent letters from Ms. Karen Fencil and Mr. Lynn Wright clearly demonstrate this.
In her Nov. 9 letter, Ms. Fencil expressed her concerns over the election of Speaker Mike Johnson. Her concern related to his being unprepared has been ably responded to. Her concern that Mr. Johnson, because he is a devout Christian, will turn the country into a theocracy, borders on the ludicrous. She asserts that her concern is based on the First Amendment creating a separation between church and state. This concept is not based on the First Amendment — it provides no such thing. What it is normally based on is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson that there was a wall between church and state. The same Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence in which he asserted all men were created equal and “endowed by their Creator (defined in the preamble as being Nature’s God) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So it is clear Mr. Jefferson believed that the rights of man were given them by God, and not the king or any government, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights. Finally, Mr Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention, at which the Constitution was drafted, as he was acting as ambassador to France at the time.
As for the First Amendment it provides that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It says nothing about our legislators not considering their beliefs, including religious beliefs, in drafting and voting on legislation. Some of our legislators are Christians and hold Christian beliefs, some are agnostic, some atheist, while others consider themselves humanists, some are Muslims and some are socialists. There may even be some Marxists in the legislature. Whatever their beliefs, they are not required to shed their beliefs while they are in Congress, nor should they. Would Ms. Fencil prefer to vote for a person who has no beliefs? On what basis could she decide whom to vote for?
Ms. Fencil can take comfort in Jesus’ admonition that we should “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.” As a Christian, Mr. Johnson is guided by this teaching. As for he and his wife being in a covenant marriage, I fail to see how this constitutes a threat (it requires premarital counseling and an agreement to limit the grounds for divorce); and assume Ms. Fencil’s concern is based on not knowing what a covenant marriage is, nor the provisions of the law that created them in Louisiana (as well as in Arizona and Arkansas).
Finally, her letter fails to demonstrate how Mr. Johnson, one out of 435 members of the House, could affect such a monumental change.
As for Mr. Wright, he has worked himself into a lather over Republicans taking control of the government and passing a law outlawing abortion everywhere in the country. He is convinced that the Republicans in the Senate, if in the majority, would vote to do away with the filibuster (under which 60 votes are neeeded to advance a bill to debate), by ignoring that the Republicans have opposed removal of the filibuster time and time again. Rather, it is the Democrats who have done so, much to their regret.
As with so many on the left, he also ignores the fact that Congress is limited in what it may enact by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. They essentially believe Congress can enact almost any law they wish, rather than find authority to do so under Section 8. Historically, the Democrats have relied on an expansive reading of the Commerce provision of Section 8 to justify legislation not otherwise provided for. However, since the Sebelius decision, and given the right of people to travel, there is little, if any question that such a law could be based on the Commerce Clause or that any such assertion would survive scrutiny by the court as presently formed.
Stephen Maseda
Santa Clarita
