Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be “Interpreted Over Time”
Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be “Interpreted Over Time” from RCP Video on Vimeo.
You see, folks. Even though Kagan often quotes Israeli Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak, the bottom line is that Israel does not even have a Constitution. Barak argued in favor of establishing a constitution for Israel, and to this date there is still no formal constitution. Religious Jews were opposed to the idea of their nation having a document which the government would hold to a higher authority thaan religious texts. This coincided with the non-religious viewpoint as expressed by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, who said that even though a Proclamation of Independence had been adopted and was a great event, it was merely the beginning of a long process in Israel’s evolution as a democratic state and not “the redemption.” Keep in mind that Judge Barak is noted as having been strongly opposed to the IDF employing the practice of targeted killings when dealing with terrorism, and therefore has come under considerable fire by Israelis much in the same sense that Americans would not favor tying the hands of the US military when targeting terrorists.
In the age of religious indoctrination, some of which leads to acts of violence, political indoctrination also springs from the same clear cut, defined boundaries. The well-known arguments between secularists and the religious elements of society, at least to so-called ‘progressives’, underscores the need for an evolutionary constitutional law. However, this occurs most times by way of legislation becoming adopted into the constitution, and legislative agendas are what Elena Kagan’s mentor, Aharon Barak, drew from when he fashioned Israel’s first prototypical constitution.
Of course, when the judiciary becomes intertwined with the activities of the elected legislative branch, then over time the definition of the makeup of the government itself can be changed, which to many is the precipice of tyranny. Kagan’s approach toward constitutional law being an interpreted over time would never be accepted in Israel even though there is not a constitution per se. Ben Gurion viewed constitutions as having outlived their usefulness during which in times past economic and social disorder required constitutions.
It is not that Kagan’s views about the US Constitution are not correct, but rather she does not take into account the fact that there is a need to maintain social and economic order in the United States. It is just that in a day and age when Americans feel that government has assumed far too much power in controlling others’ lives, this is hardly the time to be arguing in favor of more regulations. The problem in the US is that the Constitution has been amended so much so that it is now a document that is on the verge of becoming meaningless.
The nanny state is a perfect example of how judicially-inspired legislation corrupts the system. It does not take into account that people must be allowed to succeed or fail on their own and assumes that the government can guarantee happiness. Happiness is not guaranteed even though it is a right. The Kagan experience should viewed for what it is, and that would be a dangerous step for America. In fact, many are now openly saying that given the penchant for America to borrow excessively is leading it toward financial ruin. Much of this has to do with wars that are fought but not declared by Congress and thus not paid for as well as social programs that are abject failures, yet nobody seems to be able to say that they have no right to exist.
All I can say is that this video speaks volumes as to why America’s Constitution should be simple and straightforward. Many of the amendments that exist today have become mere rallying points for the media and their propagandists to shake down their fellow citizens by way of taxes. They do this by presenting false arguments for or against issues, which fundamentally are unconstitutional. Yet, oddly nobody says a word. The reason for this is simple. Once social engineering, or socialism, is adopted into the constitution it creates more inequity by favoring one group over another.
Meanwhile, when there is a real need to exercise a basic constitutional right of self-defense, it often gets lost in the muddle of other language in the constitution and leads to situations like what exists in both Israel and the US today, which eerily reflects one another in their inconsistent reaction to an obvious threat from Iran and other rogue nations in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
In other words, the judiciary has no business whatsoever dabbling into the affairs of the legislative branch of government, and vice versa. When it does, a nation becomes weaker because its hands are tied and is unable to defend itself, much in the same way the US is faltering in Afghanistan now.
