Most patriotic and historically astute Americans are well-aware that the people of America saw things quite differently than people in other nations, and some 234 years ago decided we would set ourselves apart from that way of thinking. In doing so, we created an environment of unparalleled freedom and unprecedented prosperity.
In 234 years, that different way of thinking has continued. To be sure, there have for several decades been those in America who yearn for our country to lower itself to the standards of European socialists, to trade our freedom for the illusion of greater material security, to be like other nations. Yet enough Americans remain who understand the preciousness and uniqueness of our way of life that America has managed to stave off the worst of socialist indulgences.
But if President Barack Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is confirmed, we will move one step closer to being like other nations because she has a dangerous fondness for foreign law and an apparent animosity for the law of the U.S. Constitution.
LifeNews reports that during her confirmation hearings to become U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan spoke favorably of using foreign law in U.S. courts:
During her Senate confirmation hearings last year to become U.S. Solicitor General, lawmakers asked Kagan about the use of foreign law and she responded: “At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts.When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General’s office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices’ support for the positions that the office is taking.”
During her time as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan made it a point to diminish the importance of U.S. Constitutional law while elevating foreign law.
Says a memo from Americans United for Life:
“In addition to her admiration for judicial activist Judge Aharon Barak, who encourages judges to rely on Comparative law, Kagan led curriculum reforms in 2006 that changed Harvard Law School’s 100 year-old curriculum to require International and Comparative law,” the memo notes. “What course is no longer required? Constitutional law. It became a course students could elect if they so desired.”
The U.S. Constitution is unique in all the world; it was 223 years ago when it was crafted, and it remains completely unique. The moral and philosophical assumptions behind the U.S. Constitution are distinct and have never been replicated anywhere else in the world. All U.S. law is supposed to conform to its principles and limitations. It is the ultimate authority by which all law in America is to be judged, and is really the only fully legitimate authority for judging subordinate laws.
First of all, foreign law has absolutely no authority in American government or the American court system whatsoever. To interject foreign law, which is usually based on a very different set of moral and philosophical assumptions, into American legal matters is irrelevant at best and quite possibly very dangerous to proper constitutional legal analysis.
Then there is her college thesis on socialism. She said it was “sad,” especially for those who “still wish to change America” that internal feuding in the Socialist Party had “reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance.” She also lamented in the wake of this setback for the Socialist Party that “American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies.”
In her thesis she discusses the eagerness of communists in America to have the Soviet Union intervene in their internal party disputes, have the Third International group from the Soviet Union hand-pick leaders here in America, and that these American communists even identified with the Soviet union as their “native country.” Alas, even this “help” from the Soviet Union was not enough to reverse the losses in American membership and thus reduce their influence in American labor unions.
The thesis is 134 pages long and contains a host of other damning statements that, while not as militantly revolutionary as Bill Ayers’ “Prairie Fire,” nevertheless sounds as if it might serve as a more scholarly and unemotional treatise by Obama’s domestic terrorist.
Now, is it reasonable to bring up something she wrote nearly 30 years ago? Her opinions may have changed. Mine have certainly changed in the last 20 years; I’ve ditched a lot of the youthful liberal delusions I once held.
But if her statements and actions remain consistent with what she wrote 30 years ago, then it is quite reasonable to weigh the statements in this thesis seriously. I think that her actions and statements with regard to the Constitution and foreign law, her animosity toward free speech displayed as Solicitor General, her infatuation with globalism, her contempt toward the military and national defense, her abortion advocacy, and homosexual advocacy all come together to paint a picture of someone who is every bit as Leftist as she was 30 years ago.
Like most liberals, Kagan undoubtedly finds the inherent limitations on the federal government built into the Constitution to be too confining, too restrictive to her vision of glorious socialist revolution.
Our unique American liberties are already under unprecedented assault from socialists in all branches of our government. If we want future generations of Americans to live free as past ones have, we must remove these enemies of liberty from power and avoid putting new ones in place.