The Presidential Oath of Office, as set down in Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution, reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The issue of the Presidential Oath of Office was included in the former post on this site, as to questions raised about just what job Barack Obama is actually doing (and which one he isn’t doing) as to “job requirements” of the U.S. Presidency, and especially as to the Oath of Office of the Presidency, which Barack Obama and predecessors have all accepted and sworn to.
The additional question is now raised as to what conclusions we the nation are to make when the Presidency refuses to honor that Oath. As also as this applies to individuals nominated to the United States Supreme Court — the Supreme Court is responsible for actually applying the Constitution to challenges, so “preserv(ing), protect(ing) and defend(ing) the Constitution” is of chief importance (and job function) for anyone confirmed to the Supreme Court, just as it is to anyone in the Presidency.
Any President — and any nominee to the Supreme Court who such a President is responsible for — who considers our Constitution not sound, or flexible, so to speak, to a point of being “changeable” as need be per political opinion, are not doing their “best” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Both Obama and Kagan, based upon their various declarations about the Constitution, are, indeed, doing their “best” to affront and destruct the Constitution.
It’s not a surprise that a President, though accepting and swearing to the Oath of Office, would afterward continue on a path that sets upon the Constitution, not to protect but to afflict, would nominate persons to the Supreme Court who reflect his opposition to the Constitution and to contents that are disrespected as they exist.
Barack Obama: “the Constitution…is a flawed document”.
Elena Kagan: “Constitution is ‘a living document’.”
Kagan reflects Obama’s political opinion in her outlook as to her presumption of lack of soundness of the Constitution “as is” — so she displays an attitude about those contents and that document as she would about, say, anything requiring an upkeep or redecoration to accommodate her and others’ needs for change (whatever it may be but Kagan is clearly an advocate of specific social agenda issues, such that these appear to be her chief concerns about which the Constitution would need to be “altered” to accommodate).
These issues aside for a moment, because at the essence of what I as a citizen and voter find most offensive about both Obama and his nominee, Kagan, are that they are so enthusiastically making ridicule of the Oath of Office that Obama has sworn to. It appears that their shared mission, in other words, is to alter our Constitution and therefore is identified the purpose of Kagan’s nomination.
And that such purpose contradicts the integrity of the Supreme Court as it would any Justice confirmed to that Court. The Democrats cavalierly enjoy Elena Kagan, which identifies them as also enjoying the goal they share: destruct, alter, modify the Constitution from the Supreme Court by way of activism from that Bench. It avoids the inconvenient burden of asking American citizens what they think via the Amendment process as it also does affirm a corruption of ethics by Democrats who support Kagan as also about Kagan as an attorney (which professional ethics I believe Kagan also violates in this same regard).
Believing the Constitution is “a living document” and, therefore, can and even should be altered via a judiciary process is simply ethically corrupt. It is especially, particularly horrific when such a belief is ascribed to by anyone in the Presidency who has sworn the Oath of Office. Which, in Barack Obama’s case, particularly, appears to have been “acted out” yet not sincerely believed — an insincere swearing, in other words.
Thus, Obama’s equally ethically corrupt nominee, Elena Kagan, as to the terms of that Oath. Either “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” or refuse the Oath of Office (and thus, the Presidency).
Or, swear falsely to the Oath, assume the Office of the Presidency and go about not preserving, not protecting and not defending the Constitution. The question today is, what do we the people do about this latter offense?
And about Kagan’s offensive nomination, what with Congress indicating it is not too keen on our Constitution, either — if they were, there would be an end to Kagan’s nomination with a resounding, “no”.
Elena Kagan says “the Constitution” is “meant to be interpreted over time”…these statements by Kagan are some of the dumbest, most mundane I have ever heard when listening to testimony before Congress — by anyone. Not only does Kagan think the Constitution is about “change” (meaning, interpret it as times change), but she also is, literally, insipid in her views as she’s expressing them. Is she running for junior high, ninth grade class secretary?
“Elena Kagan Admits She is a Political Activist”
— from RedState, June 28, 2010
“The Standard for Judging Kagan”
By Tony Blankley, June 30, 2010
There seems to be one thing on which everyone can agree. From archconservative pundits to archliberal White House staffers responsible for Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, all agree that the test is whether she is in the “mainstream of current legal thought.”
But it would seem to me that such a standard only makes sense if you approve of where the mainstream currently is. For instance, left-wing statists – who believe in almost unlimited powers of government, who heartily approve of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London (which authorized a city to take non-blighted private property from its lawful owner and give it to someone else solely so the city can make more money), who believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate every action or inaction of everyone living south of Canada and north of Mexico – would like all current and future court nominees to enjoy wading in the current mainstream.
But wouldn’t it make sense for those of us who believe in original intent (and in this instance “us” would seem to include almost all Republican senators, based on their public statements) (Ed. Note: emphasis added) to support only nominees who hold to the standard of the mainstream of legal thought as of Sept. 17, 1787, when the writing of the Constitution was completed (or perhaps as of March 4, 1789, when the Constitution went into effect)?
After all, James Madison, who largely wrote the Constitution, obviously would be unqualified to interpret it today because it is a mathematical certainty that he would be appalled at the “mainstream of current legal thought.”
For instance, consider a leering Democratic senator grilling Madison in 2010 on his views concerning the current mainstream theory of “a living Constitution,” which requires that the Constitution be viewed in the context of today’s events. Being an honest man, Madison would have to repeat what he said whilst he was alive: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
Oh dear, that puts Madison dangerously outside the current mainstream. (— Continued).
Please visit the Kagan Pages on this site for extensive articles and revealing information about Elena Kagan, in which Pages abundant objections are identified as to Kagan’s fitness and competentcy for the Supreme Court.