almost any part of the jewish agenda
Obama will always be second
On Jul 1, 12:35 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This Sunday, our nation will celebrate Independence Day, which commemorates
> the Continental Congress' adoption of the Declaration of Independence on
> July 4, 1776. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration preamble reads: "We hold these
> truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
> are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The fact that we as a
> nation came together every year to celebrate this document might lead many
> Americans to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take the
> Declaration of Independence into account when they are interpreting the
> Constitution. Elena Kagan is not one of those Americans. Under questioning
> from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) yesterday, Kagan
> admitted<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368605:6530414634:m:1:1...>:
> "To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights
> independent of the Constitution."
>
> And Kagan's disturbing indifference to the existence of natural rights is
> just one of the many frightening revelations her confirmation hearing has
> produced. On Tuesday, Sen. Coburn
> pressed<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368606:6530414634:m:1:1...>Kagan
> about the limits the Constitution places on Congress' power to control
> what Americans do:
>
> *Coburn:* If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to
> eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through
> Congress and that's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate
> the Commerce Clause?
>
> *Kagan*: Sounds like a dumb law
>
> *Coburn:* Yeah, but I got one that's real similar to it that I think is
> equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which it is.
>
> *Kagan:* But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is
> different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional and I
> think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are
> senseless just because they're senseless.
>
> The law Coburn was referring to, of course, was President Barack Obama's
> signature legislative accomplishment: the Obamacare provision that forces
> all Americans to buy health insurance. But Jefferson and the other
> Constitution framers designed the document to protect our "unalienable
> Rights" by limiting the power of Congress. They designed an ingenious system
> of checks and balances that divides state and federal authority in the hope
> of preventing any one government from exerting too much control over a free
> people. Specifically<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368607:6530414634:m:1:1...>,
> Article I allocates to Congress "[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,"
> and section 8 of Article I (referred to by Sen. Coburn above as the Commerce
> Clause), grants Congress the authority "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign
> Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." The
> Supreme Court has always understood that, taken together, these clauses put
> some legislative powers beyond Congress'
> reach<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368607:6530414634:m:1:1...>
> .
>
> But Kagan has now testified that not only does she find the Founders'
> concept of "unalienable Rights" irrelevant to Constitutional interpretation,
> but she also declined to say if the Constitution prevents Congress from
> telling Americans what to eat. Her evasive non-response to Coburn's
> Commerce Clause inquiry shows that she would indeed be a rubber-stamp for
> almost any part of the Obama agenda that Congress
> enacts<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368608:6530414634:m:1:1...>.
> So if the Obama administration convinced Congress (and this is a total
> hypothetical) that the survival of a single car company, let's say Chrysler,
> was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation's economy, and
> Congress then passed a law forcing all Americans to buy a Chrysler car,
> Kagan would find such a law, while perhaps "dumb," perfectly constitutional.
> Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
>
> The leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that the
> Obamacare individual mandate is extremely vulnerable to being struck down by
> the Supreme Court. That is why they have spent so much of the hearing trying
> to redefine what "judicial activism"
> is<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368609:6530414634:m:1:1...>.
> As Heritage Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
> Robert Alt will testify today, the Court is not committing "judicial
> activism" every time it finds that a law violates the Constitution. Judicial
> activism is not a function of outcomes, but one of
> interpretation<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4368610:6530414634:m:1:1...>.
> Instead, it occurs when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to
> uphold, or strike down, a statute or other government action which is
> clearly forbidden by the Constitution.
>
> Kagan came to the committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme
> Court nominee in recent history. What little has been learned about her
> views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has
> demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation's founding documents
> or the independence from this White House to apply the law as it is written,
> and dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment