Thoughts on Kagan

There has been a lot of talk about the nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate hearings for her. There are many that state that we should not approve her because she is liberal, pro-abortion, etc. To be brutally honest; I could care less about those, but there are a couple of issues I do have with her that should automatically exclude her from being nominated and they are:
*her belief that foreign law should be used in making decisions
*her belief that justices should use their power to make laws
*her belief that it is ok to pass a law that is unconstitutional because the government would never enforce it.

The first 2 of these beliefs are in clear violation of the judicial branch's power, as Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The statement "which shall be made, under their Authority" does not grant them the power to make laws (that power is granted to the Congress) but means that they are to include laws, treaties, etc. that made while they are on the bench. Notice there is nothing about foreign laws either, that is because the Founding Fathers intentionally excluded them as many of the foreign laws at the time were repugnant to what the country was founded on. Think about this also; do we want laws such as those in Islamic countries to be used to make in decisions, ie. laws such as women are nothing but possessions.

The last point is proof that she is not fit to sit on the bench, if any part of a law is in violation of the Constitution the whole law is in violation. Then there is the fact that if we allow these laws to be "ok" then at some point we could have the government actually enforce the unconstitutional part of the law.

I want to touch on a couple of things I see and hear a lot of:
*The first is about how the Constitution is to be interpreted. The fact of the matter is is that the Constitution is in plain English and that means that it states exactly what it means. When we attempt to interpret it is when we run into issues. Look at what was said about the 2nd amendment prior to the Miller decision, we had people interpreting the 2nd to mean that it applied to the military/National Guard when it plainly states it applies to the people (the citizens).
*The other is about whether the rights, such as the 2nd, are granted or that they are incorporated by means of the Due Process or Privileges/Immunities clauses of the 10th amendment. They are natural rights, meaning that they existed before the creation of any government.

If we nominate and appoint people that will adhere to the Constitution and not attempt to interpret the Constitution, regardless of their ideology, then we should have a USSC that the Founding Fathers intended.