Why Kagan will undermine the Constitution

I came across this article the other day and thought it had some great insight into Elana Kagan’s nomination for SCOTUS. Just one more big way Obama plans to undermine the Constitution. Let me know what you think!

Kagan Disqualifies Herself

There’s been a lot written already about Elena Kagan’s nomination to SCOTUS.  People have been talking about how she’s never been a judge before or how there is limited evidence of her views and how she would rule.

I’m here to tell you that Ms. Kagan has already disqualified herself with one statement. There is no need for anyone to do any more searching or pour over documents or try to dig up dirt.

This comes directly from a post on the site Kagan Watch and the bold emphasis is from the author and not me.

In a questioner from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) about gun rights during her confirmation to be Solicitor General, Kagan had this to say:

“Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

Did you catch that? No not the blatant disregard for the Second Amendment. It’s not the effort Ms. Kagan puts into trying to rewrite the Second Amendment either.

Have you found it yet? It’s only two words.  Give up?

“… after Heller…”

Ms Kagan reveals that case law would be the basis for any decisions she makes as a Justice of SCOTUS, not the Constitution as it was written and originally intended.

Just so there’s no confusion. Let’s look at Federalist Paper No. 78:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”

Alexander Hamilton

In other words, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not case law.

Based on Ms. Kagan’s own words, she has disqualified herself from ever serving the citizens of this great country as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Check out the full blog at http://blog.flecksoflife.com/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: