At the ronalreagan president ial Foundation Institute it is my honor to have judge ginsburg with us was the chief judge on the dc circuit 2001 through 2008 and on the court working with the Reagan Administration top bar and Harvard University of chicago columbia we are excited to talk about this project you have been working on. Amazon video series more or less perfect union. So what was it that made you want to do that . Thank you for asking. This is addressed to a crisis in our Education System in the us now. And those that have been neglected graduating each year from high school never exposed to how the Government Works what the constitution says and the National Values are and simply we cannot have that functioning democratic republic with a completely ignorant population but we are headed in that direction. I am doing is part of a broader reaction to that with Civics Education Sandra Day Oconnor started the ball rolling him and to create educational materials and to distribute so
Of things. Its both available on amazon prime, a video series called a more or less perfectunion. As well as a companion book. If i can ask you judge ginsburg what was it that made you want to do this . Thank you tony for asking. This is addressed to what i think is a real crisis in our Education System in the us now. In that civics is not being taught as nearly and widely as it should be. Even American History is often neglected. So we have millions of students graduating each year from high school who have never been exposed to how our government works, what our constitution says. What our National Values are even. The younger person is these days, the more ignorant they are likely to be on these topics and we simply cannot have a functioning democratic republic with a completely ignorant population but we are heading in that direction. And i am, what im doing is part of a broader reaction to that in civics education. I think Sandra Day Oconnor started the ball rolling a dozen years
Of columbia circuit. A position he was appointed to a 1986 by president Ronald Reagan. He served as ahief judge of 2001 until 2008. In 1987, speing of judge ginsburg present ragan said he believes as i d that the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret the ross laws not make them. He bieves that inur democracy is for the elect representatives of the people to mak the laws. And the judges must never attempt to substitute their private will for t will of the people. You see, judge ginsburg remembers as i do the warning of james mattis the dissent for which theonstitution was accepted and ratied by the nati is not the guide to expounding a there can be no security for the faithful ercise of the powers. Judge ginsburgs got on to write many books for the cotitution. His newest book voices of our republic is a companion peace to his threepart a me elect perfect unit which shelso talks about this today. This is of our public features about the constitution personalities dignitaries and e
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t