Kagan sees natural rights as independent of the Constitution

Strangely for a Supreme Court nominee of all people Kagan sees natural rights as independent of the constitution....even though natural rights have been constitutionalized.

As well Kagan says she has no view on rights outside the constitution. How can a person being nomintated to the Supreme Court never have formed a view on natural rights when the constitution itself point to such rights....which are established in natural law.

"To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution...."

Kagan Zero View


Ninth Amendment – (Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution).
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Not even in this open ended powerful amendment has Kagan found time to develop a "view" on natural rights.

And Yet.....

my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and other laws of the United States.

Kagan-Coburn


But what if she were faced with a 9th amendment issue?...and how can someone be taken seriously as a SC nominee that cant or wont even voice an opinion on natural law.... only to say that natural law exsits somewhere outside the consitution?

Wake Up folks! God help us.

reply to post by Logarock


Dr. Tom Woods: Where Do Rights Come From?
fascistsoup.com...

Watch it.

Then watch the rest of the videos found in my signature.

This is what the republic has come too ....

Well I am gonna go check my gear something tells me the tyrants are gonna come for the patriots once again.

Better get ready.

reply to post by mnemeth1



Your link is broken.

I suppose that since being able to defend my life is an inherit natural right Kagan and the rest can shred the constitution and still cant take my guns away.

Well, by brute force of law they could try.

This might be a good thing. We're finally being honest about life, liberty and property and the role of government.

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
This is what the republic has come too ....

This may look like something Kagan and others could give or take on...natural rights that is. But make no mistake these types do have a contempt for the idea of natural rights and the idea of inalienable rights.

By brushing the concepts off in a discusion like this they give the impression that the concept is rather archaic or the interest of historians or you name it...just not something relevant.

But dont be fooled.....they understand precisely what natural rights are and what they mean to the constitution. You will never hear what they really think in public as you can in college classrooms around america. They have been attacking the foundation by attacking natural rights for years in college classrooms.

The idea that our creator has endowed these rights is like fingernails on the chalkboard to them.

And notice if you read the artical "the constitution is an extraordinary document"-Kagan. Obama has used this line. This is their standered line to disarm the mind to the subtleties that come after.

If the bench is ever stacked by these types their tone will change and they will turn the constitution into a confine, attach ruleings as if they were amendments, and totally disregard consepts behind the constitution that exstend outword.

Fro exsample Kagan says she holds with Heller on the 2nd amendment....big deal...and big deal for Heller....we dont need Heller we can go back to Madison and beyond... Heller moves us further away from the foundation when we see it as a benchmark strawman that can be overturned....got to watch these sneeky bastards.... as if Heller was making precedent here. Heller was nothing more than an affirmation of what already stood. Heller was not a landmark ruling but a reversal of misfortune and as long as it is seen as some sort of benchmark rather than reversal of an infringement we are setting ourselves up.

For example Chicago is set to fight and skirt Heller thus avoiding the real constitutional issue. By fighting Heller as a new "ruling" chicago can avoid most of the sticky natural and constitutional rights issues. They dont have to go back to foundation... just Heller.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I suppose that since being able to defend my life is an inherit natural right Kagan and the rest can shred the constitution and still cant take my guns away.

Well Kagan also had some things to say about the right to free speach....and this will extend to redressing the Governement.

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored.

LOOK THE #&%@ OUT FOLKS


Kagan is a master stoke...in that a total nut is able to present herself without formal history in said posting!!!!! Nothing to point to save for some acedemic indulgences of pet radical anti-americanism.

reply to post by Logarock

Just as it happened in Germany they used written law to subvert natural law.

Hitler took power legally, look it up.

The same situation is evolving here via incrementalism.

A battle of inches not of miles, they take a little at a time and int he end
with patience they get what they want and that was well described by
a former marine corp general when these ppl were less patient.



How deep this goes is visible in events such as what happened to JFK.

What happened in the Bhopal Disaster.

What happened to Ken Saro Wiwa.

The NWO isn't coming, it is already here, but it is moving to get much worse.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Yea, Kagan probably works for them sure. They just figured out long ago that they needed to work through proper channels if they wanted to overthrow the deal....like using SP judges.

Originally posted by Logarock...

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored.

LOOK THE #&%@ OUT FOLKS


Kagan is a master stoke...in that a total nut is able to present herself without formal history in said posting!!!!! Nothing to point to save for some acedemic indulgences of pet radical anti-americanism.

By extension, anything "partisan enough" can be censored, right? So let's censor the Democrats.

My interpretation of Natural Rights separate from the Constitution is that as long as you are not harming anyone else or infringing upon their Constitutional and/or Natural Rights then everything is your right.

How can we possibly trust someone to hand down judgments on Federal Law when she doesn't even have an opinion of any? She could be a very dangerous judge. This means that unless those rights are specifically detailed within the Constitution it is up for debate. Well Ms. Kagan, no they are not.

The SCOTUS is a threat to Liberty and as such should be destroyed just as Thomas Jefferson had advocated. It is not hard for corrupting forces to control just 9 people. Just 9 people have the say of what is legal or illegal in this country. I do not trust any small group of people, especially unelected, to have so much power.

reply to post by abecedarian


Well really...we get to many more Kagans and anything left that is partisan wont have to worry about it.

reply to post by Misoir


Yes and those rights named are simply natural rights carved into stone.

Re 'natural rights' - unlike the erroneous information given on John Wilkes wiki page, here is 'the rest of the story'

Nota Bene: I cannot cite sources as the old mouldy editions I thumbed through were in a library in Savannah, 20 years ago...

John Wilkes ( as in Wilkesbarre Pennsylvania ) was Lord Mayor of London, he also was later a member of parliament. He published a political rag called "the North briton" which skewered "TPTB" of THAT era, including, and especially the faction led by "Lord Bute"

In 1766, he published the 45th issue of "the North Britain"... which included the following revolutionary idea:

"That a man is a sovereign unto himself, and may only be ruled by his own consent"

Prior to the introduction of this idea, The KING was the only Sovereign.

The King was not amused, and John Wilkes was arrested and held in the tower.. meanwhile, the citizenry of London, began to march around the jail, all day and at night by torchlight (mostly between drinks). The demonstrations forced the King to release John Wilkes as the people were behind him.

This idea, that a man "was a sovereign unto himself, and may only be ruled by his own consent" was revolutionary and spread like wildfire.. One of the English readers of the North Briton, in 1766, was a man named Thomas Pain. Who later introduced these ideas to the citizenry of the then British Colonies in America..

In America groups calling themselves "the Sons of Liberty" would routinely protest various taxes and injustices. In Boston, the King's tax collector's home was raided, and his furniture and belongings were thrown out the windows. The tax protestors, AKA "the sons of liberty", would march through Boston, carrying an effigy of the Pope with a sign saying No Popery, (the marriage of church and state to conspire to create willing and servile subjects) they would dedicate trees as "Liberty Trees", hanging papers with the number 45 (for the 45th issue of John Wilkes North Briton) and an old boot... for evil Lord Bute.. and they did this long after the meanings of these symbols were forgotten.

Oh, they would also hang an effigy of the tax collector and set it on fire.

The number 45 written on a door would protect it during unrest from the protestors rages...

Number 45 = "a man is a sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"
--------------

End note: Thomas Pain used to sign his name with a flourish.. which was mistaken as Paine... and the rest is history...

Great post. The idea does go back later than this however. It had started to blossom and be taken up in several quarters some time before 1776. Look into William of Orange, Billy Boys ect.


Charter of Liberties

Magna Carta

Locke's arguments for religious toleration connect nicely to his account of civil government. Locke defines life, liberty, health and property as our civil interests. These are the proper concern of a magistrate or civil government. The magistrate can use force and violence where this is necessary to preserve civil interests against attack. This is the central function of the state. One's religious concerns with salvation, however, are not within the domain of civil interests, and so lie outside of the legitimate concern of the magistrate or the civil government. In effect, Locke adds an additional right to the natural rights of life, liberty, health and property — the right of freedom to choose one's own road to salvation. (See the section on Toleration in the entry on Locke's Political Philosophy.)




Locke

To be fair, and not in the interest of supporting Kagan but for the truth, Natural Rights, while an idea supported heavily in the constitution and the declaration of independence, is not responsible for these rights.

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist. - Rights of Man, Thomas Paine.

By thinking the constitution gives us these rights, which it doesn't, we give man too much power over other man; in fact, thinking that the constitution gives us natural rights goes completely against everything natural rights supports.

Now, it depends on your religious nature, but natural law can easily be summed up and explained by this; on the sole virtue of being human, you have these rights.

It's that simple. There's no need to mention a creator ultimately because natural law, especially in this country, has always been seen deist in nature. Natural rights are as natural for a human being at birth as is having a heart, brain or lungs.

Well yea no government gives us these rights. But they are listed for the benefit of the powers that be if you will. The fact the Kagan was so weak on the issue stems form her thinking that the rights listed were granted and not based on any other philosophy but this granting. She probably has about as little use for the idea of social contract. She certainly sees "law" as allowance from power working downward and that all "law" must first serve power before it can serve the people.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

It's that simple. There's no need to mention a creator ultimately because natural law, especially in this country, has always been seen deist in nature. Natural rights are as natural for a human being at birth as is having a heart, brain or lungs.

The idea of creator as granter of rights was a direct challenge to the creator granting the idea of Divine Right of Kings. The rhetoric was called for as the recognition of natural rights as divine rights had to be made againt the other. In fact the revolution had to make this primary challenge in order to upset the apple cart as it were.....not to shake the fruit out of the tree.