Kagan's Disdain For Constitutional Law

Phil Boehmke
Judicial experience for a Supreme Court nominee is significant in that previous decisions are often the best indicator of the nominee’s interpretation of the law and the constitution. For a nominee such as Elena Kagan who lacks judicial experience their legal scholarship takes on increasing importance in determining their fitness to serve on the high court. Since the volume of Ms. Kagan’s legal scholarship is miniscule it would be prudent to examine her actions and decisions in her previous positions.
 
A healthy respect for the Constitution would seem to be a fundamental requirement for any person who would serve on the Supreme Court. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote.

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 be any irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute...
 
The question of Ms. Kagan’s respect for the Constitution as the fundamental law of our Republic may be illustrated by one the decisions she made as Dean of Harvard Law School. CNSNews.com reports.
 

As dean, Kagan won approval from the faculty in 2006 to make major changes to the Harvard Law's curriculum.

"My understanding is that she instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law," Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.


"Currently at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation," Alt added.
 
It is a frightening prospect that someone who feels that constitutional law is not important enough as to be a required course of study for the prospective lawyers in her charge, should be seated on the Supreme Court where her influence would be felt for decades to come. As Mr. Obama continues to remake our Republic to suit his socialist agenda he understands the crucial importance of having like minded individuals on the high court to fend off potential legal challenges. In explaining her overhaul of the Harvard Law curriculum Ms. Kagan said.
 
"Our mission is not simply to train lawyers, more broadly, we must seek to train leaders-visionary thinkers and practitioners capable of designing new institutions to meet individual and societal needs."

 
Will the senate find the courage to prevent the confirmation Ms. Kagan? Will our elected leaders chose to “preserve, protect and defend” our Constitution, our Republic and our Freedom or will they meekly submit to the superior will of the Obama regime?
 
 
 
Judicial experience for a Supreme Court nominee is significant in that previous decisions are often the best indicator of the nominee’s interpretation of the law and the constitution. For a nominee such as Elena Kagan who lacks judicial experience their legal scholarship takes on increasing importance in determining their fitness to serve on the high court. Since the volume of Ms. Kagan’s legal scholarship is miniscule it would be prudent to examine her actions and decisions in her previous positions.
 
A healthy respect for the Constitution would seem to be a fundamental requirement for any person who would serve on the Supreme Court. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote.

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 be any irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute...
 
The question of Ms. Kagan’s respect for the Constitution as the fundamental law of our Republic may be illustrated by one the decisions she made as Dean of Harvard Law School. CNSNews.com reports.
 

As dean, Kagan won approval from the faculty in 2006 to make major changes to the Harvard Law's curriculum.

"My understanding is that she instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law," Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.


"Currently at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation," Alt added.
 
It is a frightening prospect that someone who feels that constitutional law is not important enough as to be a required course of study for the prospective lawyers in her charge, should be seated on the Supreme Court where her influence would be felt for decades to come. As Mr. Obama continues to remake our Republic to suit his socialist agenda he understands the crucial importance of having like minded individuals on the high court to fend off potential legal challenges. In explaining her overhaul of the Harvard Law curriculum Ms. Kagan said.
 
"Our mission is not simply to train lawyers, more broadly, we must seek to train leaders-visionary thinkers and practitioners capable of designing new institutions to meet individual and societal needs."

 
Will the senate find the courage to prevent the confirmation Ms. Kagan? Will our elected leaders chose to “preserve, protect and defend” our Constitution, our Republic and our Freedom or will they meekly submit to the superior will of the Obama regime?