By Gabriel "Scooter" Schaefer
In a few weeks Obama's judicial nominee Elena Kagan will face the
Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people in her nomination
process to serve on the Supreme Court. As members of both parties draw
their battle lines and rehearse their talking points in preparation for
the hearings, conservatives are missing a clear opportunity to activate
the American people in opposition to a global activist who will bring a
Constitution "optional" judicial philosophy to the High Court.
If fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the federal
government launched the current Tea Party movement, then disregard for
the Constitution has fueled its flames. After all, it was an act of
civil disobedience in Boston Harbor that would ignite a fire in the
colonies and decades later culminate into a newly formed nation with a
Constitution that would protect against the very same tyranny which
spawned the original Tea Party.
As an academic, Elena Kagan and many of her elitist colleagues
have shown disregard for the principles by which our nation was
founded, and the importance of a document intended to restrain
government and protect the individual.
In 2006 as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan overhauled the
curriculum to no longer mandate Constitutional Law as a requirement to
graduate; instead, Constitutional Law would be relegated to optional
elective status. According to a Harvard press release concerning
changes made to the curriculum, "each student will take one of three
specially crafted courses introducing global legal systems and concerns
- Public International Law, International Economic Law, and Comparative
In the same press release Kagan goes on to explain that
changes made will allow students to address "fact-intensive problems as
they arise in the world," and to reflect on the "assumptions and
methods of contemporary U.S. law and the perspectives provided by other
Translation: Kagan effectively altered the curriculum at
Harvard Law School to focus on international comparative law and issues
rather than the traditional Constitutional Law framework which is the
basis of our legal system.
Inevitably, Kagan's defenders in academia will point out that the
Constitution is applied throughout the curriculum at Harvard and any
other school of law and is therefore not needed as a required course of
study. However, if you apply the same line of logic to other fields of
study, such as American Foreign Policy, or U.S. History, it is easy to
understand the significance behind omitting 'American' and 'U.S.' from
a course simply because it may be implied.
In the changes she implemented as dean, Kagan advocated the
philosophical convergence of the policies and laws of our nation and
that of others. And, if the narrative coming out of one of our nations
most "prestigious" law schools sounds familiar, look no further than
comments made by the President at the recent West Point graduation
ceremony. "All hands are required to solve the world's newest threats:
terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding
and caring for a growing population."
In the past year and a half we have seen a movement spread
like wildfire, advocating the simple message of a return to common
sense in government. Comparisons to other nations and "perspectives
provided by other disciplines" are not needed to restore our government
to the way our Founding Fathers intended. Instead we should adhere to
the principles that have made our nation great; fiscal responsibility,
free markets, individual liberty, and protection from government
infringement into our lives, defined by the Constitution.
What the American people must understand is that the fight for
restraint in government will not just be won in the halls of Congress,
but also in our courts. As a practioner of the current administration
and its policies, Kagan will bring to the bench a global perspective on
our laws and policies, while applying the Constitution as "optional."
This article was published on Townhall.com on June 8, 2010.