Perhaps it is again time for a history refresher regarding the origins of the United States of America. The Constitution is far more than just a venerated piece of parchment containing soaring words and phrases, that sits behind a thick piece of glass in the National Archives. It was, and is, the original and foundational “Contract With America,” the national charter by which the states mutually agreed to establish a federal government for the purpose of arbitrating between them and collectively representing them among foreign powers.
As such, this profound document represents the framework within which America was birthed and has flourished ever since. Recognizing that it was by no means perfect, the founders included in it an amendment process, made deliberately cumbersome in order to prevent drastic changes based on transient or reckless motivations. Ultimately however, if three fourths of the states ever determined that it was no longer effective, the means was provided to call a new constitutional convention, an act that would amount to no less than the official dissolution of the United States of America.
While such a scenario may sound apocalyptic, it must be clearly understood that the framers intended for the American nation to be defined by its Constitution. Thus they did not take lightly the prospect of tampering with it. And it is for this reason that the willingness of liberals in recent years to alter or ignore it, absent the amendment process, poses such a stark danger to the very future of the nation.
Members of the federal judiciary are ultimately tasked with the duty to ensure that all parties abide by the terms of the “contract.” And the integrity (or lack thereof) with which they perform this function directly affects the nature of the country in which we live.
The abounding freedom enjoyed by so many Americans throughout the past two and a quarter centuries was a direct result of the nature of that document, and its painstaking preservation during that time. Conversely, the burgeoning threats to freedom and liberty now facing all Americans are a direct consequence of efforts by arrogant individuals who would acquire power and advance their ideology by any means. The course of the nation was never intended to be directed by the strong forcing their way upon the weak. And the Constitution was the vital bulwark against that possibility.
In his infamous January 18, 2001 interview on Illinois public radio, Barack Obama disparaged the Constitution as a collection of “negative liberties.” This was his perverse interpretation of the limitations it wisely placed on those in government who would use their positions of power to foster dangerous fundamental changes on the people. Consumed by the belief that he and his kind could create a socialist utopia if only they can garner sufficient control over the lowly masses, he did not relish the inconvenience of constitutional limitations on his self-aggrandizing agenda. And this abhorrent sentiment is shared by his kindred, including Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
In an ugly contrast to the necessary openness of a worthy confirmation process, the Obama Administration has taken drastic efforts to limit public access to Kagan, her family, former teaching associates and anyone else who might be able to shine appropriate light on just who she is. It is Obama’s goal to reduce Kagan’s confirmation process to an inconsequential formality, after which she can govern from the bench according to their shared philosophy.
Nevertheless, sufficient evidence has surfaced to alarm any who might be concerned with the fate of the Constitution in her hands. Like her White House benefactor, she thoroughly disdains it and the great nation it once fostered. More dangerous still, she believes that upon donning the judicial robe, one can thereafter issue edicts from which no recourse exists. On this basis alone, she has proven herself to be wholly unqualified to take a place as a Supreme Court Justice.
Some, on the Republican side, are deriding her for a lack of sufficient judicial credentials. Others have questioned the depth of her thinking. But while these concerns may be valid, they by no means pose any threat to the nation comparable to that of an activist judge, no matter how well credentialed she may be. It matters little how high of a pedigree can be claimed by a jurist who willingly invokes that background as an avenue to undermine the integrity of the Constitution.
Nor should anything valuable be expected to come from intense Republican grilling of Kagan, even eliciting “promises” of restraint, if the end result is her confirmation. In fact, such action may only serve to steel her resolve to get even with constitutional (conservative) America.
It is disturbing that she has displayed considerable skill at dodging and evading direct answers to basic questions regarding her judicial philosophy. Such duplicity does not exemplify laudable jurisprudence and is in fact a reflection of dubious leanings and a willingness to publicly falsify them.
A leftist, by definition, cannot be a constitutional originalist. And even a cursory examination of Kagan’s past clearly identifies her as an extreme leftist. Therefore, the question of her fitness for a seat on the nation’s highest court was answered in absolute finality before she ever uttered a single word in the Senate hearing. No senator from either party can vote for her while credibly claiming to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
It is abominable that Democrats will cast their votes to undermine and erode the very precepts that made America, in order to move their liberal agenda forward. It is no less so that some Republicans will collaborate in this effort, either by voting to confirm, or by only making token efforts at opposition while refraining from doing whatever it takes to prevent this latest attack on the fabric of America from reaching its grim fulfillment.
Copyright ©2010 Christopher G. Adamo