Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...

Author Topic: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...  (Read 18844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SlaveState

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« on: June 30, 2010, 07:52:42 PM »
Quote
A seemingly incredulous Coburn asked Kagan whether she believed in "unalienable rights," such as those referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

"You should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief" in people's rights outside the Constitution and laws, Kagan retorted. "I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_kagan_supreme_court

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2010, 07:57:43 PM »
"You should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief"

he almost makes it sound like thats some made-up chit, this guy needs to read the Constitution a few more times

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2010, 08:18:50 PM »
yeah, the constitution was not written for us. when yall gonna get that through yer head? "The People" = the royal blood line...not you and me. as far as the NWO is concerned, slaves/serfs/worthless eaters do not get unalienable rights. thats why she was having trouble with the "outside the constitution" part.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2010, 08:24:32 PM »
yeah, the constitution was not written for us. when yall gonna get that through yer head? "The People" = the royal blood line...not you and me. as far as the NWO is concerned, slaves/serfs/worthless eaters do not get unalienable rights. thats why she was having trouble with the "outside the constitution" part.

the constitution was written for us, what kind of total absolute horseshit are you talking about?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2010, 08:24:40 PM »
So they plan on gunning down 200 million + who won't stand for this crap?  Are they f*cking serious?

I mean seriously, do all these feds and cops ever wonder what their wife is going to tell their kids when they ask:  "Mom, how come daddy not home yet?"

Mom:  "Daddy decided to violate the inalienable rights of some people, and um, he wont be home for a long, long time..."

Do these people seriously want to f*cking suffer the consequences of a global civil war where hundreds of millions will fight to the death?

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2010, 08:30:05 PM »
the constitution was written for us, what kind of total absolute horseshit are you talking about?

addendum: WRITTEN FOR US & BY US!!!! ;)

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2010, 08:30:31 PM »
I don't "get it"... ???

Cruising toward confirmation

Also, why do they always have to show a picture of her??? End it now for the love of God!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2010, 08:31:11 PM »
"I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."

Oh really?

Hey Kagan...

Please visit this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution

Now read the following 1,000x till you get it through your MK Ultra Kazynski Mind Controlled Harvard noggin'

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2010, 10:35:36 PM »



  The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.  Kagan is appalling.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2010, 10:39:12 PM »
The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.

Can never be said enough.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2010, 10:42:24 PM »


  Unfortunately the socialists/fascists/communists that run this country don't believe that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  THEY MUST BE REPLACED IN NOVEMBER.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline hyperqube

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,942
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2010, 10:43:47 PM »
huh? elections are real?

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2010, 10:48:45 PM »
I would not trust that Kagan to deal with a parking ticket.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Kagan says no INALIENABLE Rights...
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2010, 10:49:59 PM »
Need I point out that INALIENABLE (cannot be parted or removed) is spelled with an "I"?

Un-alienating is what they want to do with all the illegal aliens that they have brought here who are slaving for them! (as in un-Cola) ::)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2010, 10:51:26 PM »

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

    United States House of Representatives

    Statement on H. Res. 1422

    June 24, 2010

    Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives recently considered H.RES. 1422, honoring the 140th anniversary of the Department of Justice. I voted against this resolution because of the Justice Department's history of violating individual rights.

    It is the Justice Department that leads the ongoing violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments in the name of the "war on drugs." It is Justice Department agents who perform warrantless wiretap, and "sneak-and-peak" searches under the misnamed PATRIOT Act. It is the Justice Department that prosecutes American citizens for violating unconstitutional federal regulations even in cases where no reasonable person could have known their actions violated federal law.

    Some like to pretend that the Justice Department's assault on liberties is a modern phenomenon, or that abuses of liberties are only carried out by one political party. However, history shows that the unconstitutional usurpations of power and abuse of rights goes back at least almost a hundred years to the "Progressive" era and that Justice Departments of both parties have disregarded the Constitution and violated individual liberties.

    During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Justice Department imprisoned people who dared to speak out against the war. Following the war, the progressive assault on the First Amendment continued with the infamous "Palmer raids," named for Wilson's Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Just as President Wilson's policies of foreign interventionism and domestic welfare served as a model for future presidents, Attorney General Palmer's assaults on civil liberties served as a model for future attorney generals of both parties. Think of Robert Kennedy authorizing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr, John Mitchell's role in the abuses of civil liberties by Nixon Administration, Ed Meese's assault on the First Amendment with his "pornography commission," Janet Reno's role in the murder of innocent men, women and children at Waco, and the steady erosion of our rights over the past decade. In addition, it is the attorney general and the Justice Department that defend and justify violations of constitutional liberties by the president and the other federal bureaucracies.

    Many civil libertarians were hopeful the new administration would be more sympathetic to civil liberties than was the prior administration. But the current administration has disregarded campaign promises to restore respect for civil liberates and has continued, and in many cases expanded, the anti-freedom policies of its predecessors. For instance, the current administration is supporting renewal of the policies of warrantless wiretapping, and other PATRIOT Act provisions. The administration, despite promising to be more open and transparent, is also continuing to use the claim of "state secrets" to shield potentially embarrassing information from Americans. According to the New York Times, the current administration is even outdoing its predecessors in the prosecution of government whistleblowers. It is little wonder that the head of the American Civil Liberties Union recently said he is disgusted with the administration's record on civil liberties.

    Of course, Madam Speaker, Congress bears ultimate responsibility for the Justice Department's actions, as it is Congress that passes the unconstitutional laws the Justice Department enforces. Congress also fails to perform effective oversight of the Justice Department. Instead of honoring the Justice Department, Congress should begin to repeal unconstitutional laws and start exercising congressional oversight of executive branch agencies that menace our freedoms.



Nuff Said ...
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2010, 10:56:54 PM »
"I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."

Oh really?

Hey Kagan...

Please visit this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution

Now read the following 1,000x till you get it through your MK Ultra Kazynski Mind Controlled Harvard noggin'

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.


states rights or constitution? make up your mind people. flip-floppers
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2010, 11:11:38 PM »
states rights or constitution? make up your mind people. flip-floppers



they are the same thing no matter how many times the East India Trading Company conditions the unaware to preach they are not.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2010, 11:24:05 PM »


they are the same thing no matter how many times the East India Trading Company conditions the unaware to preach they are not.
LOL. tell the guys in the "10th amendment" thread that.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2010, 11:37:07 PM »
This SPIN-ster just becomes more obtuse and perplexing by the day  -- in other words the usual candidate for SCOTUS.

She'll be in like Flynn at this rate, sadly.

Can you say "rubber stamp"?

Republican party:  a whimper at least?

Who's got the old maid?  We all do.

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,354
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2010, 11:41:16 PM »
check out the "Dirty Dozen"  : The court has generally ruled in favor of more government power ie all power rests with the government.

The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution so no "unalienable rights". Kagan is like a final straw towards a  soviet style kangeroo court. So Kagan is saying that since the declaration is not the constitution it can be completely ignored.


http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

The term "kangaroo court" may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The first recorded use is from 1853 in a Texas context.[1] It comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo.[1] Despite the association of kangaroos with Australia, the phrase is considered an Americanism.[1]

Mock justice
The term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused.

It may also be an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. Terms meaning "show trial", like the German Schauprozess, indicate the result is fixed before (usually guilty): the "trial" is just for show. Notorious were Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's kangaroo trials against his enemies, whom he labeled enemies of the people, notably in the context of the Great Purge.

http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/the-dirty-dozen
The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, With a New Preface

It explains how the Supreme Court, mostly starting during the (first?) Great Depression began to reinterpret the Constitution to permit a vast expansion of federal power. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is very interesting to see how we got from Lincoln having to beg state governors for resources to the all-powerful federal government of today.
...
The authors of The Dirty Dozen come down pretty strongly against rewriting or reinterpreting the Constitution to allow the U.S. federal government to operate like the central government of the People's Republic of China.

They advocate a restoration of state and individual rights, at least back to where we were circa 1925. Even if you don't agree with their political ideas, the book makes for interesting reading. Nearly all legal scholars would agree that these are 12 of the most important cases ever to come before the Supreme Court and that they have changed our lives immeasureably. The authors capably summarize the reasoning behind the majority decisions even though their sympathies are with the dissent.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935308270?ie=UTF8&tag=pgreenspun-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1935308270
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,354
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2010, 12:09:29 AM »
Sovereign Citizenship - each citizen has the sames rights as a king would have

Ie the rights to weapons


http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/art1.html

What is Sovereign Citizenship?

This brings us to the question, "What are we getting back?" What does it mean to be a Sovereign Citizen?

The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:

The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states. But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized as being the true sovereigns:

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...

Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas' Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages

471, 472 (1793)

Each individual, at least so far as respects his unalienable rights is his own sovereign.

These rights weren't given to any government.

In fact, they can't be. Perhaps you can give up all of your rights, if you so choose, but who has the power to give your rights up for you? In America, no one can, because we're all equal. In American this principle of popular sovereign is recognized by all governments - state and federal. When the states became independent, the state governments were formed, all of them based on the authority of the people, and not the will of one man or a small body of men. The federal government as we know it today was created in 1789 when the federal constitution went into effect. The constitution mentioned something previously unknown in American law: Citizenship of the United States:

The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there was no citizen of the United States...

http://legalinvestigations.com/what_is_a_sovereign_citizen.htm


In England the coat of arms signified the "right to Arms" only the kings friends were allowed arms.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/caprec.html
The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted as one of the provisions in the 1181 Statute of Assize of Arms

The next prohibition apparently came in the 1328 Statute of Northampton under King Edward III,[16] and banned all private persons from using any force in public "in affray of the peace," or from going or riding armed in public at all

http://www.sog.org.uk/leaflets/arms.pdf
The right to arms
coat of arms and crest

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/sovereigncitizens_041310.html
Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement.

Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.

This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.

That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:

Commit murder and physical assault;
Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel;
Impersonate police officers and diplomats;

Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and
Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.

Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups.

During the past year, we’ve had a number of investigative successes involving sovereign citizens. A few recent cases:

In Sacramento, two sovereign citizens were convicted of running a fraudulent insurance scheme. Operating outside state insurance regulatory guidelines, the men set up their own company and sold “lifetime memberships” to customers, promising to pay any accident claims against their “members.” The company collected millions of dollars, but paid out very few claims. MoreIn Kansas City, three sovereign citizens were convicted of taking part in a conspiracy using phony diplomatic credentials. They charged customers between $450 and $2,000 for a diplomatic identification card, which would bestow upon the holder “sovereign” status—meaning they would enjoy diplomatic immunity from paying taxes and from being stopped or arrested by law enforcement. MoreIn Las Vegas, four men affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement were arrested by the Nevada Joint Terrorism Task Force on federal money laundering, tax evasion, and weapons charges. The investigation involved an undercover operation, with two of the suspects allegedly laundering more than a million dollars from what they believed was a bank fraud scheme. MoreYou can help. First, “be crime smart”—don’t fall for the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens. And second, if you have information on any suspicious activities or crimes, please contact us.



Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2010, 01:09:15 AM »
sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...

Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas' Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages
"govern themselves" is the key point there. We are supposed to govern ourselves. The constitution is a limitation of power upon the federal government. it was not written for us. its a document that federal officials are bound by and subject to. The feds are obligated to operate within the confines of the constitution, not you and me. So, even under the "official story" the constitution does not apply to us, it applies to the feds.

And that's only if you are naive enough to accept the "official story" that was fed to you in the public school system. If you look around for 5 minutes, you will notice that all the top politicians are "groomed" for, and "placed" in office. Which suggests a shadow monarchy ruling class. And, of course, a monarchy does not believe its' subjects possess unalienable/inalienable/human/birth/economic or any rights. we are just worthless eaters in the eyes of the black robed priests. This is why Kagan's remarks do not surprise me.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2010, 07:11:43 AM »
Sovereign Citizenship - each citizen has the sames rights as a king would have

Ie the rights to weapons


Under the ABSOLUTE rule of the "anointed" Constitution of Republican Liberty  (the paper monarch):

NO citizen has nor is offered ANY EXTRA "rights" (illegal privileges) over any others that a "king" (tribal mafia warlord-tyrant) might be given nor exercise!

The paper Constitution itself is the sole "sovereign" to which (not to whom) the citizen pledges their sole "allegiance" - this paper document ALONE is the "feudal lord", NOT each citizen!

Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas' Supreme Court is completely wrong in this statement:
Quote
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...

It is true that after the revolution, the sovereignty briefly devolved on the people, but they then elected and "anointed" an explicit paper monarch to replace a tempermental and inconsistent human one.

When an American recites their oath of Allegiance it is to this paper monarch and the Republic for which IT STANDS!  (anointed by we the people as monarch)

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2010, 07:35:51 AM »
There can be no objectified "sovereign" without some separated creature(s) of "subjection" (subjugation) to he or it. You are not even the "sovereign" of your own arms and legs as they (alone) cannot "do your bidding" without you also so doing it.

Your arms and legs are not subjects as they cannot operate independently without you.

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,354
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2010, 02:15:15 PM »
Quote
The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution so no "unalienable rights". Kagan is like a final straw towards a  soviet style kangeroo court. So Kagan is saying that since the declaration is not the constitution it can be completely ignored.

As I tried (badly) to point out,  The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the constitution) delineates the unalienable sovereign rights alluded to in the Declaration of Independence. So Kagan obviously believes our "unalienable rights" specified in the Bill of Rights in the constitution are to be re-interpreted into oblivion...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2010, 02:30:16 PM »


I find this statement more disturbing... especially for a SCOTUS nominee.

Quote
"Every judge has to do what he or she thinks the law requires"

REALLY?!?  I thought it was a SCOTUS justice's job to ensure the laws and issues raised in our highest court are held to the standard of Constitutional scrutiny... not subjective criticism.

As a SCOTUS Justice, you should know more than even the most ardent patriot regarding Constitutional restrictions and limitations.  I posit that almost any member of the patriot movement is more qualified that this troll to serve in our highest court.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2010, 02:44:17 PM »

I find this statement more disturbing... especially for a SCOTUS nominee.

REALLY?!?  I thought it was a SCOTUS justice's job to ensure the laws and issues raised in our highest court are held to the standard of Constitutional scrutiny... not subjective criticism.

As a SCOTUS Justice, you should know more than even the most ardent patriot regarding Constitutional restrictions and limitations.  I posit that almost any member of the patriot movement is more qualified that this troll to serve in our highest court.


ya forget?...we in das Amerika!!

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,354
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,354
Re: Kagan says no Unalienable Rights...
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2010, 03:53:54 PM »
Bump - Kagan Confirmed
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass