Jul 4, 2010
If Kagan Doesn't Believe in Inherent Rights, How is She Qualified to Serve On the Supreme Court?
Last week we witnessed a disturbing though certainly not a surprising event in our nation's capital when President Obama’s nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagen refused to answer directly the question posed to her by Senator Tom Coburn during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings about whether or not she believed in rights that are inherent to us. Though falling short of an emphatic denial, this evasive maneuver might better be described by saying she conspicuously declined to affirm such a belief. In any event it left me feeling that Republicans must demand a filibuster so they can take the time to educate the American people as to who this woman is by allowing the Congressional staffs to thoroughly investigate the significant paper trail she has accumulated. We know they would do this if her nomination was from a Republican president. Remember Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts.
Denying natural rights and natural law during the week in which we celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence struck me as a distortion of the deeply held beliefs of the signers of this sacred document, which clearly states “we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also strikes me as a betrayal of their intentions which obviously was that they and succeeding generations would be able to live in the freedom our creator intended for us, which has been the rallying cry of man since the dawn of time, though history shows that most have walked the earth as slaves or subjects of an oligarchy. In fact, recently we saw photo evidence of an early draft of the Declaration of Independence in which the word “subjects” was crossed out and replaced with “citizens”. .
The founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to be the source of citizen's rights. Our rights are derived from our very existence as human beings created in the image of God,not from the government or even the Constitution. Rather, one of the original specific purposes of the Constitution was to protect those "unalienable rights" from an over reaching tyrannical government. The basic rights of the individual can never be abrogated for the sake of the majority or security threats from a rebellious and angry populous, which characterizes the mindset of the statist as well as every tyrant that has ever lived, which is why the Bill of Rights was inserted in the first place as an additional safeguard. Furthermore the historical record shows that the Constitution would not have been ratified with out the inclusion of these protections against a repressive government which they had learned firsthand that one should always be on guard against even with weapons in hand as shown in the Second Amendment which granted the Right to Bear Arms, point blank, with no strings attached and please don’t bring up militias because we're all part of a citizen's militia, at least we're suppose to be.
When Elena Kagen stated to Senator Tom Coburn “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution” she revealed the fundamental misunderstanding quite often found on the left and amongst progressives concerning the relationship between the Constitution and its’ citizens. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. Our rights preceded the Constitution.
Although they granted certain powers and rights to the Federal government in areas such as National Defense and coining money etc they were explicit in enshrining the primacy of individual rights in the 9th amendment which states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, and in the 10th Amendment demonstrating that the federal government was never intended to become the monstrous regulatory beast it is today by saying: “The powers not delegated to the United States Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people"
Later she watered down her statement somewhat when she said “I’m not saying I do not believe there are rights pre-existing The Constitution and the laws, but my job as a Justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws” which sounds close but does not go as far as saying she believes “unalienable rights” exist, which is what makes the Constitution special. The citizens are the original author and have rights which are inherent and cannot be ignored while the state serves the people and not the other way around. If Elena Kagen does not believe in this most basic element of the Constitution, then how is this nominee who has never served as a judge qualified to determine whether something is Constitutional or not from the highest court of the land.