1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary.
The Constitution is the oldest written charter of government in use in the world today.
Today, we have a major political party that sees the Constitution as a bar to their power.
2. A 2001 INTERVIEW OF Sen. Barack Obama saying some pretty remarkable things about what he sees as the inadequacy of our Constitution has recently come to light. They go to the core of what this election is about and, even more fundamentally, what America is and may be.
It's perhaps good to remember first what makes America different from other countries. Unlike in other places that are defined by geography and ancestry, to be an American comes from subscribing to a particular set of ideas that are very, very different from those held in much of the rest of the world.
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
....Obama, like many leftists before him, is unhappy with the constraints of our Constitution. ....that sort of thinking—that government should do it—is precisely what saps volunteerism and helps explain why both the Obamas' and the Bidens' charitable contributions are so pitiful.
It's also important to remember that if the government is doing something for one person—"redistributive change" as Obama wants, it must do something to someone else—which is exactly what our Constitution specifically precludes."
3. Earlier, the Republicans wanted a reading of the Constitution in Congress....
"Other lawmakers decried the exercise altogether, saying the Constitution is a living document that shouldn't be followed to the letter.
"They are reading it like a sacred text," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told The Washington Post.
Nadler derided what he called the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to give Republicans claim to the document. He argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's needs for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
www.foxnews.com
4. Imagine putting on our Supreme Court, a Justice who disavows the first amendment. Justice Kagan opposes free speech.
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
thedaleygator.wordpress.com
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
5. Another Democrat/Liberal Justice who has no respect for the US Constitution.
SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ~ to Egypt: "I would not look to the US constitution"
The Constitution is the oldest written charter of government in use in the world today.
Today, we have a major political party that sees the Constitution as a bar to their power.
2. A 2001 INTERVIEW OF Sen. Barack Obama saying some pretty remarkable things about what he sees as the inadequacy of our Constitution has recently come to light. They go to the core of what this election is about and, even more fundamentally, what America is and may be.
It's perhaps good to remember first what makes America different from other countries. Unlike in other places that are defined by geography and ancestry, to be an American comes from subscribing to a particular set of ideas that are very, very different from those held in much of the rest of the world.
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
....Obama, like many leftists before him, is unhappy with the constraints of our Constitution. ....that sort of thinking—that government should do it—is precisely what saps volunteerism and helps explain why both the Obamas' and the Bidens' charitable contributions are so pitiful.
It's also important to remember that if the government is doing something for one person—"redistributive change" as Obama wants, it must do something to someone else—which is exactly what our Constitution specifically precludes."
3. Earlier, the Republicans wanted a reading of the Constitution in Congress....
"Other lawmakers decried the exercise altogether, saying the Constitution is a living document that shouldn't be followed to the letter.
"They are reading it like a sacred text," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told The Washington Post.
Nadler derided what he called the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to give Republicans claim to the document. He argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's needs for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
Purpose Behind Congressional Reading of Constitution Questioned After Amendments Are Omitted
Newly sworn members of the House reading aloud the country's founding document on Thursday didn't recite every verse and article of the Constitution because Republicans decided that the obsolete parts should not be read, a decision that raised criticism about adherence to the Founding Fathers'...
4. Imagine putting on our Supreme Court, a Justice who disavows the first amendment. Justice Kagan opposes free speech.
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…
thedaleygator.wordpress.com
5. Another Democrat/Liberal Justice who has no respect for the US Constitution.
SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ~ to Egypt: "I would not look to the US constitution"
