WE'LL SEE ACHIEVEMENT GROWTH BY 2020.
The 2008 Presidential election left Democratic primary voters the choice between a far-right 1% Wall Street global corporate neo-liberal Obama who the national media painted as being a left-leaning FDR New Deal kind of guy and a Hillary who was a far-right 1% Wall Street global corporate neo-liberal -----left-leaning Democrats were told in 2008---VOTE FOR THE LEAST WORST----just as they are saying this Presidential election.
I DO NOT VOTE FAR-RIGHT REAGAN REPUBLICAN I SAID IN 2008 AS I AM NOW.
I knew Obama was the latest plant as a candidate because I knew his history. I knew as well why a National Public Media----an American Public Media----and all the national media outlets promoted his record as A US CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR FROM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. Social Democrats were lead to believe that Obama was going to stand for our NEW DEAL AND EQUAL PROTECTION US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. What the real message from 1% global Wall Street was this------OBAMA AS A GRAD FROM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND PROFESSOR AT U OF CHICAGO KNOWS HOW TO CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION FROM WE THE PEOPLE TO WE THE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% and that is what Obama has spent these several years doing. A Hillary win in 2008 would have brought the same---this is why our Democratic primary elections are rigged so that only MOVING FORWARD candidates reach the general elections.
Chicago school of economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on the
The Chicago school of economics is a neoclassical school of economic thought associated with the work of the faculty at the University of Chicago, some of whom have constructed and popularized its principles.
In the context of macroeconomics, it is connected to the "freshwater school" of macroeconomics, in contrast to the saltwater school based in coastal universities (notably Harvard, MIT, and Berkeley).
It appears that the ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CROWD SEE 2020 AS THE PIVOTAL TRANSITION FOR INSTALLING US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. This is tied to the fact that this coming 2016 Presidential election partnered with a collapsing US Treasury and municipal bond market and economic crash will take a few years to create massive economic disruptions in the US and especially our US cities. This is about when the global 1% Wall Street expect to send in the World Bank and IMF to RESCUE OUR US CITIES AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. It's not exact science but a PROJECTION.
WHY ARE THE ONLY DISCUSSIONS ON WE THE PEOPLE RIGHTS ONLY COMING FROM GLOBAL IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY CORPORATIONS PARTNERED WITH GLOBAL WALL STREET?
'Michelman also emphasized that the best way to have these economic powers recognized as constitutional rights is by changing how people read the Constitution, rather than changing the text of the Constitution itself'.
So Harvard and Yale are having these discussions on US Constitution 2020----Obama is pushing to FAST TRACK TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT as hard as he can so the next 4 years can see Congress AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to install these global policies.
American Constitution Society hosts “The Constitution in 2020”
November 16, 2009
Teaching & Learning
The American Constitution Society of HLS sponsored “The Constitution in 2020,” a panel discussion in November featuring Harvard Law School Professors Yochai Benkler ’94, Frank Michelman’60, Mark Tushnet, and Noah Feldman, all contributors to a recently published book of the same title. The book’s goal is to contest the conservative idea that constitutional law should not be influenced by contemporary understandings of law and the political landscape.
Benkler focused on the interaction of information technologies and First Amendment rights, and suggested that freedom of speech is better protected when law-making bodies create rules and regulations that actively promote a diversity of viewpoints, rather than taking a “laissez-faire” approach to the marketplace for speech. He emphasized that copyright and patent laws, as well as laws regulating industries, will be just as important to the development of constitutional law in the future as civil rights laws.
“The critical point is, as you go forward, as you think about what goes into individual freedom and into a well-functioning democracy, you have to think about the basic technical and market infrastructure,” Benkler said. “What does that mean as a matter of what counts as constitutional law? It means that it’s not just constitutional law, it’s not just the First Amendment, it’s technical economic structures.”
Michelman provided an overview of the essay that he contributed to “The Constitution in 2020,” titled “Economic Power and the Constitution.” He argued that basic constitutional rights should encompass basic economic powers, including the ability to meet one’s own needs, including work, access to equal opportunities and political influence, safeguards for basic personal rights, an open and diverse media, and competitive markets. Michelman also emphasized that the best way to have these economic powers recognized as constitutional rights is by changing how people read the Constitution, rather than changing the text of the Constitution itself.
“How people read the Constitution depends on their background beliefs about what our laws actually would say about these matters if our laws were to conform to what the reader takes to be the country’s deepest political and social ideas,” he said. “So in other words, it depends on the background political culture, or constitutional culture. And as lawyers, our tools for working on that certainly don’t exclude the courtroom, but the courtroom isn’t going to be center stage.”
Tushnet analyzed the state action doctrine, which prevents the federal government from interfering with the actions of states and encourages judicial restraint in the application of federal laws. “For 30 years, conservatives have hijacked the Constitution, and we’re taking it back,” said Tushnet. He suggested that, by creating a space within which the public could participate more fully in governmental policymaking, the current, judicially-restrained reading of the Constitution could be expanded.
Tushnet emphasized that “what we need to do is participate in the creation of a constitutional culture in which participation by the public in the shaping of public policy is understood as a constitutional activity. Not merely that you are engaging in something constitutionally permissible when you’re engaging in policies, but the policies that you are promoting are themselves… oriented to the Constitution.”
Concluding the presentation, Feldman noted:
“All of us have spoken about a vision of the Constitution in which the Constitution is not a piece of paper, it’s not even the body of constitutional law, i.e. binding court decisions, that interpret that piece of paper. The Constitution is something completely different. The Constitution is a collection of customs, practices, beliefs, laws, and values, which includes market structures and other institutional structures, which together shape and legitimate the exercise of not just public power, but all power in our society. And it is a progressive… vision to see the Constitution that way.”
He went on to describe the process of constitutional politics, and how views about the meaning and scope of the Constitution are changed through political conversation and action.
“It’s about viewing constitutional politics in real world terms, where you identify constituencies, interest groups, values and desires that actually motivate people, and address them, and deal with them directly,” he said. “I think that’s a part of the process of constitutional politics, and it’s desirable, and it’s a progressive way of thinking to acknowledge that it’s a justifiable and legitimate part of how constitutional law and constitutional studies, more broadly, and constitutional politics in the deepest sense ought to operate.”
In addition to the contributions of the panelists, the book “The Constitution in 2020” includes 23 essays, including one from HLS Professor Cass Sunstein.
A companion website, www.Constitution2020.org, includes ten sample chapters from the book, essays about the future of the U.S. Constitution, discussions of current constitutional issues, a bibliography and resources for further study.
In early October, the Yale Law chapter of the American Constitution Society hosted The Constitution in 2020 Conference, bringing top legal scholars, practitioners, and activists from around the country to Yale Law School for in-depth discussions about the future of American constitutional law.
We are not discussing the validity of attacks from left or right wing critics against the Obama history presented by national media. We are simply looking at how global 1% Wall Street stages these candidates and creates an artificial history. Whether we want to believe that to be made a RHODES SCHOLAR means someone is 'exceptional' and not simply someone identified as a WALL STREET PLAYER GOOD FOR BEING A SHOW ME THE MONEY AND I'LL DO ANYTHING I'M TOLD citizen----these are not exceptional people and they have rigged histories to make them seem to be working for WE THE PEOPLE.
Below we see a comment stating the obvious---how did a brand new grad get tenure right out of university----with no history of legal writing? It seems Obama was placed at the head of Harvard Law School just as the Clintons were placed in positions they could not have achieved -----this doesn't say Obama is not very smart---he is----it speaks to staging people for future lives as politicians. Why was it important that Obama be tied to being a US Constitutional scholar TODAY-----because he would be the face of MOVING FORWARD these NEW US CONSTITUTION policies. So, no doubt Obama was taught what those new constitution policies would be---while US media PRETENDED Obama would bring that scholarship to protect our current US Constitution----for WE THE PEOPLE.
'It was as a law student that Obama first made history—and national headlines—when he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review in the spring of 1990'.
'Accordingly, a reader asks: “I’d like to know how unusual it is for an elite law school like Chicago to offer a tenured position to a professor who has not produced any academic writing.”'
Notice this was during the 2008 Presidential election-----the point is this: Harvard and Yale decades ago developed what they saw as a NEW CONSTITUTION and have been setting the stage to install this ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----and all this is coming to a head with the 2020 timeline
And all this is tied to the AMEND THE CONSTITUTION MOVEMENT.
Inside Professor Obama’s Classroom
July 30, 2008 11:11 am July 30, 2008 11:11 amWe’ve asked four legal experts to take a look at then-Professor Barack Obama’s course materials and offer some insight into what they say about Mr. Obama’s teaching methods, priorities and approach to the Constitution.
Please use the comment section of this post to ask questions about Mr. Obama’s course materials and the related article.
Pamela S. Karlan | 6:20 p.m.: John Eastman’s second post, along with a number of the readers’ comments, prompts me to make the following points.
The first is about titles. John is 100 percent right both about the fact that “professor” is often used as a courtesy title to refer to law school teachers whatever their formal rank. (Students usually call every teacher either “Mr.” – or “Ms.” – X or “Professor X.” I’ve never heard a single one call a teacher “Lecturer X.”) He’s also 100 percent right that it would be very, very rare for anyone to have been appointed in recent times to a regular tenured position at a school like Chicago without any scholarship at all.
That being said, titles like “senior lecturer” differ from school to school. They’re sometimes used for long-term appointments for people of great professional distinction who come to the academy, later in their careers. And some schools even have positions accompanied by the title “professor” that do not require prior publication experience. For example, here at Stanford, we have the Warren Christopher Professorship of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy. It’s been held by two very distinguished people – Allan Weiner, who has decided to stay on at Stanford as a Senior Lecturer, actually, and who is now writing very interesting and important scholarship – and by William Taft IV, who has served, among other posts, as general counsel and deputy secretary in the Department of Defense, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and the U.S. Department of State’s legal adviser, the highest legal position in the department. But neither Allan nor Will was given the Christopher Professorship because of traditional scholarly publication.
Jodi Kantor | 3:48 p.m.: Several readers have asked questions about Mr. Obama’s status at the school. Let me clarify: he started teaching as a lecturer, meaning as a member of the adjunct faculty. But in 1996, he was promoted to senior lecturer, which in Chicago’s parlance, made him a professor.
When the law school tried to hire Mr. Obama after his failed 2000 congressional race, it was for a tenured job, according to Daniel Fischel, the dean at the time. In our interview, I asked him if he meant “tenure-track,” and he said no. “He would be hired as a tenured professor,” he explained. The faculty would vote, but Mr. Obama already had their support, he added.
Accordingly, a reader asks: “I’d like to know how unusual it is for an elite law school like Chicago to offer a tenured position to a professor who has not produced any academic writing.”
Now over to John Eastman, for an answer:
One of the comments challenges Ms. Kantor’s use of the term, “professor,” to describe Barack Obama’s position at the University of Chicago Law School. Chicago uses the formal title of “lecturer” for adjunct professors, and it was in that capacity that Senator Obama was first affiliated with the law school. He was at the time affiliated with a law firm, and there is nothing unusual in law schools, even elite law schools such as Chicago, tapping into local law firms for adjunct faculty. Nor is there anything unusual in students referring to adjuncts and “lecturers” as “professor.”
What is unusual is the University of Chicago’s “promotion” of Senator Obama to the position of “senior lecturer.” As the law sSchool correctly points out on its Web site, that title is used for such long-established legal scholars as Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, both of whom continued to teach after their appointment to the United States Court of Appeals. Both were (and remain) extremely prolific scholars as well as teachers, and the “senior lecturer” title was acknowledge of that status and their judicial “day job.” Barack Obama never achieved such a scholarly stature—indeed, it does not appear that he engaged in legal scholarship at all. And to my knowledge, the title of “senior lecturer” has never been applied to someone who was basically an adjunct professor.
Even more unusual is Chicago’s claim that Barack Obama was offered a fully tenured position. The University of Chicago is one of the most elite law schools in the country, and it would be extremely rare for the law school to offer a tenure-track position to someone without any legal scholarship, much less one with tenure. The course materials and examination questions prepared by then-Professor Obama demonstrate a deep and nuanced command of the law, but for that to have resulted in an offer to the tenured or even tenure-track faculty, the normal course (indeed, nearly the only course) is for that command of legal subjects to have first manifested itself into published articles.
Perhaps then-Professor Obama’s observation of the way other legal scholars such as Robert Bork and Lani Gunier had had their work distorted for partisan political purposes counseled him against publication of his scholarly views. Too bad for us, and for the legal academy more generally. The chilling effect on true and important scholarship that has resulted from the last few decades of obnoxious confirmation fights is quite evident in Senator Obama’s prior silence.
Jodi Kantor | 3:37 p.m.: We’ve been talking today about Mr. Obama’s voice as a professor, and now, thanks to WBEZ in Chicago, we can actually hear that voice.
In a follow-up to our article, the Chicago public radio station has posted audio of a 2001 appearance in which Mr. Obama discussed Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, landmark cases that upheld, respectively, slavery and segregation.
Pamela S. Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, an expert on voting issues and a former clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun, concludes that “it’s hard to tell whether Professor Obama is simply playing it close to his vest – that is, he has strong views but thinks the classroom isn’t an appropriate place for revealing them – or whether his views fall within the mainstream of the constitutional law professoriate, which tends to be moderately liberal on individual rights issues.”
Examining the Course Materials
Pamela S. Karlan | 1:30 p.m.: Three preliminary reactions to this really interesting story.
1. In thinking about what inferences we might draw about a President Obama from a Professor Obama, we’re handicapped a little by a distinctive aspect of the University of Chicago Law School’s constitutional law curriculum. Unlike most other first-tier American law schools, Chicago separates into two separate courses what are often referred to as the “structural” and “individual rights” provisions of the Constitution. (This is probably more a function of the fact that Chicago uses three shorter terms each academic year, rather than the more conventional two longer ones, so each course covers a bit less territory.)
So the course that Professor Obama taught did not examine many of the issues that have come to the forefront of constitutional debate during the last eight years – such as the president’s inherent powers under Article II of the Constitution to disregard limitations placed on his authority by Congress or other aspects of what’s referred to as “separation of powers” (the checks and balances among the three branches of government).
The only slight hint we get about the war on terror, for example, comes from one question about handing out limited supplies of an anti-biological weapon drug, and there we’re focusing on individual rights, not the government’s powers.
2. Looking at the exams for the Constitutional Law class, one of the most striking features to a law professor is how conventional they are. If you put Professor Obama’s exam questions in a pile with the questions asked by me or my colleagues – or if you asked one of us to prepare model answers to his exam questions – you would not be able to guess which ones he prepared and which ones were prepared by full-time legal academics.
There are at least three inferences I draw from this. First, Senator Obama has a first-rate mind for legal doctrine and could have been a first-rate academic had his interests gone in that direction. He would have been most unlikely – even beyond the fact that his values differ – to have bought into the legal work underlying many of the current Administration’s policies, such as the incomplete “torture memos.”
Second, Senator Obama has a sensitivity to role. By this I mean that he doesn’t appear to have used his classroom as a platform for pushing his own pet theories of constitutional law. He seems to have taught “down the middle” in a way that gave the students the tools to be fine constitutional lawyers but didn’t require them to agree with his position. By contrast, I’ve seen other constitutional law professors’ exams and model answers where a student who disagrees with the professor’s idiosyncratic approach or policy preferences would have found it hard to do well.
Third, and perhaps related, precisely because the examinations and the model answers are so conventional, it’s hard to tell whether Professor Obama is simply playing it close to his vest – that is, he has strong views but thinks the classroom isn’t an appropriate place for revealing them – or whether his views fall within the mainstream of the constitutional law professoriate, which tends to be moderately liberal on individual rights issues.
3. The syllabus for Professor Obama’s Racism and the Law class is an interesting one. The materials are not particularly surprising, but seem relatively well thought-out. But their focus, as well as the focus of the exam questions, tends to be almost entirely on blacks and whites, with only one session devoted to the distinctive issues surrounding Native Americans – and that session being primarily historical – and relatively little attention devoted to questions that arise with respect to Latinos.
That’s not surprising as a matter of law school syllabi – the black-white paradigm remains dominant. And the syllabus is fifteen years old. But it’s interesting that Senator Obama, despite having spent many years in Hawaii, where a number of very interesting questions about multiracial groups and indigenous people have been playing out, hewed so closely to the black-white line. I would imagine if he were teaching such a course today, he might have ranged further afield.
Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes that Mr. Obama’s exam questions seem to be designed to “ferret out the student’s understanding, but also the cracks and fissures in the Supreme Court’s current approach to the Constitution.”
Randy Barnett | 12:15 p.m.: While the course materials themselves do not tell us very much about Senator Obama, the candidate, what they do tell us about Obama, the teacher, is generally favorable. I was particularly intrigued by his 1994 syllabus on “Racism and the Law.” The materials assigned were balanced, including several readings by Frederick Douglass, who many modern race theorists have come to disparage as insufficiently radical (as Obama would know), along with an exchange between Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy on the one hand and Charles Cooper (who is now on Senator McCain’s advisory committee) and Texas law professor Lino Graglia on the other. All three essays appeared in the conservative/libertarian Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy as part of a 1991 symposium on “The Future of Civil Rights Law” and were initially presented at the Federalist Society’s 1990 National Student Symposium held at Stanford. The articles were published during Obama’s third year as a law student so it is not surprising that he would be aware of them. And they would have been fresh at the time they were assigned.
I was struck by Obama’s list of possible discussion topics for his seminar. They comprehensively and concisely identified most of the issues of “race and the law” that were then being widely discussed. What particularly impressed me was how even handed were his presentations of the competing sides the students might take. These summaries were remarkably free of the sort of cant and polemics that all too often afflicts academic discussions of race. Were this not a seminar on “racism and the law” I doubt one could tell which side of each issue the teacher was on. And indeed, even knowing it was written by Senator Obama, one cannot be sure which side of each issue he really took. Whatever position he held, however, Obama could clearly see and dispassionately articulate the other side.
The exam question and answer keys manifest a keen comprehension of then-prevailing Supreme Court Due Process and Equal Protection Clause doctrine. There is no doubt that his students were taught “the law” (such as it was), not merely the teacher’s viewpoints. His exam questions were nicely designed to ferret out the student’s understanding, but also the cracks and fissures in the Supreme Court’s current approach to the Constitution. What they did not show, however, were any insights on how he thought Supreme Court doctrine could be improved.
Indeed, if one is looking to these material to learn more about Senator Obama’s own views of either “racism and the law” or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, one will be disappointed. He either was skillful at concealing his own take on these issues both in these materials and in the classroom (as reported by his former students) or he held no deep commitments on what one would think were matters of central concern to him. While this latter possibility would make him a flexible politician, it is bound to disappoint his most vehement supporters and detractors alike. In the end, while they confirm that the former president of the Harvard Law Review is a smart guy, and an exceptionally fair-minded teacher, they tell us little about his core beliefs on the very sensitive issues covered by these courses. Nor perhaps should we have expected them to.
The next post is from Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale and a former clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer, who compliments the quality of Mr. Obama’s exam questions.
Akhil Reed Amar | 11:51 a.m.: Barack Obama’s exam questions and answers engaged me on several levels.
First, As a constitutional law professor, I came away impressed — dazzled, really — by the analytic intelligence and sophistication of these questions and answers. A really good exam — an exam that tests and stretches the student, while simultaneously providing the professor with a handy and fair index to rank the class — is its own special art form. Composing such an exam is like crafting a sonnet or a crossword puzzle. We don’t have Obama’s answer key every year; but the questions themselves are in many instances beautifully constructed to enable students to explore the seams and plumb the depths of the Supreme Court’s case law. I am tempted to use variations of several of these questions myself in some future exam. (I won’t say which, lest I tip my students off.) When I read Jodi Kantor’s piece, I was very interested to hear that the University of Chicago Law School was willing to offer Obama tenure. In these materials I see why.
Second, as a student of history, I couldn’t help thinking of Lincoln. Not just because we have a skinny guy from Illinois who is largely self-made and who can write a great speech — I knew that already. Lincoln was a brilliant lawyer, who did his own thinking and writing and cut to the essence of hard legal issues with amazing incisiveness. Lincoln understood the Constitution and its deepest structures as well as or better than any of the Justices on the Supreme Court of his day. These materials helped me see Obama in a similar light.
Which brings me to the last level — the moral level. Like Lincoln, Jefferson and Madison were also brilliant. But Jefferson and Madison lived and died as slaveholders and did much less than they could have done to put slavery on a path of ultimate extinction. Nixon had a keen legal mind, but a large moral blind spot. Lincoln had a rare combination of moral depth and legal brilliance. Make no mistake, he was a politician who understood how to tack and trim. But he was a politician with a strong moral compass and a deep understanding of the rule of law. Similarly, there is a great deal of moral seriousness in Obama’s legal materials. They are not just about technical and technocratic legal questions. Some of the great mysteries and tragedies of human life and American society — involving marriage, divorce, childbearing, cloning, the right to die with dignity, infertility, sexual orientation, and yes, of course, race — are probed in these materials in ways that encourage students to think not just about law, but about justice, and truth, and morality.
First up, John C. Eastman, Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law at Chapman University and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas:
John C. Eastman | 11:11 a.m.: Although Senator Obama’s teaching position at the University of Chicago Law School overlapped my own time there as a student, I did not have occasion to take one of his classes—I tended to register for the classes of the full-time tenured faculty rather than those taught by adjuncts such as Mr. Obama—but I am not surprised to see the intellectual diversity for which Chicago is famous reflected in then-Professor Obama’s course syllabi and examinations. The syllabus from the 1994 “Current Issues in Racism and the Law” course is particularly instructive. While at many law schools, such courses are frequently taught by critical race theorists who focus largely on one side of a complex legal and policy debate, then-Professor Obama’s course included, quite appropriately in my view, readings from across the ideological spectrum, from Derrick Bell and Malcolm X to Chuck Cooper and Lino Graglia.
I was particularly pleased to see a reading from the classic work by Vattel, one of the leading international law theorists in all of human history, The Law of Nations. What is more, it is evident from the sampling of proposed topics for group presentations contained in the syllabus that this spectrum of authors was included for more than mere exposure. Rather, it appears that then-Professor Obama was leading his students in an honest assessment of competing views regarding some of the most difficult legal and policy issues our nation has ever faced—a refreshing change from what passes for debate about contested questions in our political classes these days. My one criticism of the course is his recommendation that students read Derrick Bell’s summary of some landmark (if notorious) Supreme Court decisions. Cases such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Plessy v. Ferguson, and in particular the strong dissenting opinions in those cases, cry out for careful study of the original materials, not a secondary summary.
Only occasionally do then-Professor Obama’s decidedly personal views come across. He refers to Justice Scalia’s approach to assessing fundamental rights as “cramped,” for example. But on the whole, this is a body of course materials that is as would be expected of Chicago Law Professors.
Original Post | July 29:
An excerpt from the syllabus for Barack Obama’s 1994 Current Issues in Racism and the Law seminar. In the course of reporting an article on the 12 years that Barack Obama spent teaching law at the University of Chicago, we unearthed some of Mr. Obama’s old class materials: the syllabus and assignments for his “Racism and the Law” seminar, as well as a set of his constitutional law exams and a partial set of memos he wrote about the answers.
The documents let us hear his voice as a professor, asking students to wrestle with hot-button topics like cloning and reparations. He tells students what he wants and interrogates them on what they have learned. In his little asides about gym visits and his wife, Michelle, we hear hints of his professorial style.
But the documents also offer clues about his thinking. They show us whose writings he wanted students to explore, from Malcolm X to Robert Bork. He framed complex legal, moral and political issues for his students, and in the case of post-exam memos, answered a few problems for them. Those memos also contain a few references to still-sitting Supreme Court justices.
We’re posting the documents here, and inviting you to offer your insights. Since the exam questions in particular involve hard-to-parse issues of constitutional law, we have asked four legal experts, of diverse ideological backgrounds, to lead our inquiry. John Eastman, Randy Barnett, Pamela S. Karlan and Akhil Reed Amar have already looked through the documents, at our request, and on Wednesday we will post their assessments here.
Some of the questions we’ve asked them to consider: Based on what you see here, how does Mr. Obama’s teaching measure up? What do the courses he taught, and the way he taught them, tell us about his interests, beliefs and priorities, including his approach to the Constitution?
We will be integrating reader questions and comments into the discussion, so please post yours below. Everyone is welcome: readers, constitutional law professors, former students and colleagues of Mr. Obama’s. (As for the documents, if you’re not a lawyer, you will probably find the “Racism and the Law” syllabus a more satisfying read than the constitutional law exams.)
As Obama installed all of Clinton era and Wall Street 1% and their 2% into cabinet and administration positions in 2009 ----telling us he was no left-leaning FDR---he began using Executive Order just as CLINTON/BUSH to install what was this NEW CONSTITUTION. This is why all Americans have been facing so much LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, LOSS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS, INCREASING LOSS OF PRIVACY, HEIGHTENED SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY-----it is all ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE and it sets the stage for what a NEW CONSTITUTION will look like.
A decade ago I attended here in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins a symposium in which Harvard and Ivy Leagues told us AMERICAN POLITICS IS DEAD. The goal of that meeting was reorganizing all university political science departments away from American right and left politics to INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL CORPORATE LAW. There was to be no more American politics. So, we have known these few decades of this goal-----international and global corporate law only. That is what our US Justice Department leaders, our state Attorney's General, and even our local city attorneys have as a focus.
This article is written from a right wing viewpoint because they are STILL calling 1% Wall Street global corporate neo-liberal IVY LEAGUE universities LEFT-LEANING FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
We see here the movement away from fundamental policy and US law to generalization of social context we see a law school knowing from where ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE law will come----and its restructuring is tied to global societal issues to be dealt with during this transition. This is the global NGO syndrome we are facing today in our US cities ---where all policies are being pushed by global non-profits and not WE THE PEOPLE.
'Six of nine United States Supreme Court justices attended Harvard, so they must be doing something right. But the course catalog at Harvard reveals a great divide emerging in American legal education.
Is law school about learning to practice law, or fundamental transformation'?
'And therein lies the danger -- law professors with a captive audience of first year students turn law into political ideology, a training academy for the institutional left at an elite law school. And after the first year of core classes ends, just imagine what happens in these actual classes (detailed below) that are now taught at Harvard Law School':
Below we see one example of global legal issues-----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE would need to reconcile the fact that many third world nations joining Trans Pacific Trade Pact see animals we call PETS-------as food. Dogs, cats, horses for example. While the global IVY LEAGUES are writing discussions and policy for global law WE THE PEOPLE are being made to come out for AMEND THE CONSTITUTION being told it is only about campaign finance reform to GET THE MONEY out of our elections-----
A course, perhaps, about laws surrounding animal-based commodities'?
Rule of Law
Does Harvard Teach Law Anymore?
By J. Christian Adams June 17, 2015
Harvard is to law what Winchester is to bolt actions. Powerful, dependable, well engineered and the mark of a serious craft, at least that's what I was told.
These days, Harvard graduates probably don't know much about bolt actions, unless they are a member of the Harvard Law School shooting club. A stroll through the Harvard Law School course catalog also makes you wonder how much they know about the real practice of law.
The course catalog from Harvard Law School hints that the answer might be -- not as much as we thought.
The Harvard Law School course catalog frequently reads more like an ideological training academy than it does a program for teaching lawyers how to practice law.
I may be unqualified to opine about Harvard Law considering that I went to a law school in the SEC. That's the Southeastern Conference, not the Securities and Exchange Commission. As such, I spent most of my law school years taking courses that trained future lawyers to practice real law in real American courtrooms: remedies, civil procedure, criminal procedure, legal writing, trusts, evidence, and even more civil procedure.
Six of nine United States Supreme Court justices attended Harvard, so they must be doing something right. But the course catalog at Harvard reveals a great divide emerging in American legal education.
Is law school about learning to practice law, or fundamental transformation?
Elite universities are graduating lawyers who seem most qualified to engineer fundamental social change, not represent clients in court. Law schools in most of America still seem to focus on graduating lawyers who know how to practice law. The course descriptions, below, reveal a different approach to legal education at Harvard. The political ramifications for the nation should be obvious, especially when so many positions of power are filled with graduates of elite law schools. That's not just me saying it, Harvard's own website boasts of this fundamental transformation:
Harvard Law School recently undertook a sweeping overhaul of its first-year curriculum. The new curriculum reflects legal practice in the 21st century, adding courses in legislation and regulation and international and comparative law to the traditional curriculum of civil procedure, contracts, criminal law, property, and torts. . . . In the second and third years of law school, Harvard students shape their own courses of study, selecting among a wide offering of electives. . . . Five optional Programs of Study – Law and Government; Law and Social Change; Law and Business; International and Comparative Law; and Law, Science and Technology €”developed by the Law School faculty provide pathways through the upper-level curriculum.
Sorry, but "legislation" doesn't reflect the "legal practice in the 21st Century." I took legislation in law school, and a small fraction of lawyers ever dabble in the area. Lawyers inside the D.C. Beltway seeking to expand the power of the federal government are one exception. I've sat in courtrooms listening to thousands of docket calls, and never once heard "comparative law" on the menu. Worse, in most of America, no lawyer has any use for nonsense like "Law and Social Change," unless politics are on the agenda instead of law.
Classroom blackboard at Harvard Law
Joel Pollak, a graduate of Harvard Law School and editor at Breitbart News, told me that the shift isn't always passive, where Harvard law students can hear both sides and peacefully choose. "Many of the professors who teach the 'core' classes are conscientious about fostering debate, open to different perspectives, and able to separate their own political views from their pedagogy. Others, however, seem unable to resist the urge to foist their personal ideological convictions onto their classes, resisting questions from students who disagree."
And therein lies the danger -- law professors with a captive audience of first year students turn law into political ideology, a training academy for the institutional left at an elite law school. And after the first year of core classes ends, just imagine what happens in these actual classes (detailed below) that are now taught at Harvard Law School:
The Art of Social Change
"We will bring into the classroom as visiting lecturers leaders from the worlds of policy, practice, and academia -- people who have themselves operated as successful change agents and who represent different disciplines, career paths, and strategies for change."
Fidelity in Interpretation
"This seminar will develop a theory of interpretation for the Constituiton [SIC!!!!!] of the United States tied to a particular conception of interpretive fidelity. The aim is Dworkinian -- to develop the theory that best explains and justifies our constitutional tradition." A screenshot from the Harvard Law catalog, errata included.
Feminist Legal Theory
Prof. Janet Halley
"This course will survey the most important sources of feminist thinking in and around law and law reform, with attention to the ways in which differing feminist ideas have and have not become operationalized as law that actually governs. We will pay attention to the rise and fall of feminist ideas; to competitor theoretical frames and ongoing contests among different feminist worldviews for influence on law; to nonwestern sources of feminist legal thought; and to modes of transmitting feminist ideas from one national, regional, and/or international system to another. A constant theme will be the collaborations among and conflicts between feminist social movements and social movements for emancipation of groups other than women: racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, the poor."
Law and Psychology: The Emotions
Ironically taught by Professor David Cope: "Love, jealousy, guilt, anger, fear, greed, compassion, hope, and joy play important roles in the lives of lawyers and those with whom they interact."
Law and the Political Process
Professor Lani Guinier teaches Law and the Political Process. "Prerequisites: None. Constitutional Law is strongly recommended but is not a prerequisite for this course.” No surprise in a Guinier-taught course.
Litigating Health Rights: Can Courts Bring More Justice to Health?
"The question of whether courts can not only call for modifying legislation and policies but also enforce affirmative entitlements to care has been answered in many contexts. Yet questions still persist as to when and how litigation can lead to greater equity in health and enhance the functioning and oversight of health systems, rather than distorting priorities and budgets."
A course, perhaps, about laws surrounding animal-based commodities? Maybe a survey of useful contractual issues involving agricultural commerce? Stop it, this is Harvard, not the University of Wyoming!:
Animal Law Prof. Kristen Stilt
"The course will also engage with fundamental questions about animals and the law, such as: Are some animals more deserving of protection than others, and if so, on what basis? What role does culture and belief play in animal law—why are dogs considered pets in the U.S. and food in some parts of the world, for example? Does the status of animals as property pose an insurmountable barrier to increasing protections for animals? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the concepts of “animal rights” and “animal welfare”?
Obama's choices for Supreme Court plays on this global corporate feminism championed by Hillary and her global 1% and their 2% of women. This is the policy of being socially progressive because 1% Wall Street has allowed a 2% of women to gain wealth in exchange for enslaving 99% of women in each of their nations. Same set to happen in the US under a Hillary MOVING FORWARD with US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones. They don't call Hillary corporate feminists NASTY LADIES for nothing.
LYING, CHEATING, STEALING IS NOT A MAN'S GAME ONLY SAY THESE 1% AND THEIR 2% GLOBAL WOMEN.
So, with Obama 1% Wall Street installed the Harvard President KAGAN----and the Wall Street IVY LEAGUE university Sotomayor. Women yes, WE THE PEOPLE----no. Now we have a Supreme Court consisting of mostly far-right ultra-conservative OPUS DEI -----and now far-right Wall Street Libertarian do anything you want to gain wealth global neo-liberals.
'We will pay attention to the rise and fall of feminist ideas; to competitor theoretical frames and ongoing contests among different feminist worldviews for influence on law; to nonwestern sources of feminist legal thought; and to modes of transmitting feminist ideas from one national, regional, and/or international system to another'.
If we think the global 1% and their 2% of women calling themselves corporate feminists care about the 99% of women then look at who is at the bottom of global labor pool ----global factory labor---and we see women in the worst of abuse and exploitation BY THESE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% OF WOMEN.
We are not prejudice against Catholics, Jewish, Protestant, or Muslim religions ----we are recognizing a highly imbalanced leadership structure given the total population of America and towards the austere far-right.
Here we see Sotomayor is that Roman Catholic Justice--we are being told because she is a woman she will be protecting our left-leaning EQUAL PROTECTION for all women when in fact she will as with black and brown citizens only be protecting those 1% and their 2%. As we know American Catholicism became more right and austere after many US citizens left the Catholic Church with scandals.
'Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The fifth Catholic, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often votes with them.
There are indications that Judge Sotomayor is more like the majority of American Catholics'
Sotomayor Would Be Sixth Catholic Justice, but the Pigeonholing Ends There
By LAURIE GOODSTEINMAY 30, 2009
If Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court, she will be the sixth of the nine justices who are Roman Catholic — a stunning robed portrait in a country where Catholics were once targets of discrimination and suspicion.
Four of the Catholics on the court are reported to be committed attenders of Mass, and they make up the court’s solid conservative bloc — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The fifth Catholic, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often votes with them.
There are indications that Judge Sotomayor is more like the majority of American Catholics: those who were raised in the faith and shaped by its values, but who do not attend Mass regularly and are not particularly active in religious life. Like many Americans, Judge Sotomayor may be what religion scholars call a “cultural Catholic” — a category that could say something about her political and social attitudes.
Interviews with more than a dozen of Judge Sotomayor’s friends from high school, college, law school and professional life said they had never heard her talk about her faith, and had no recollection of her ever going to Mass or belonging to a parish. Her family did not return phone calls for comment.
A White House spokesman, speaking on background, put it this way: “She currently does not belong to a particular parish or church, but she attends church with family and friends for important occasions.”
Many of Judge Sotomayor’s friends and colleagues also said they believed that her expressed commitment to social justice and community service is a reflection of her Catholic upbringing.
“In law school, it was very clear she was committed to serving the community and using the law as an instrument of service to the greater good,” said Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law who is on leave to help establish a law school at the University of California, Irvine. “That’s a mark of religion, even if she didn’t say so.”
Studies have consistently shown that the 57 percent of Catholics who rarely or never attend Mass are far more liberal on political and cultural issues than Catholics who attend weekly or at least once a month.
In fact, 52 percent of Catholics who do not attend church regularly say abortion is morally acceptable, compared with 24 percent of churchgoing Catholics, according to a Gallup study released in March based on polling over the previous three years. Gallup found that 61 percent of non-churchgoing Catholics found same-sex relationships morally acceptable, compared with 44 percent of churchgoers.
But legal scholars say that while Judge Sotomayor’s Catholic identity will undoubtedly shape her perceptions, they will not determine how she would rule on the bench. After all, they point out, Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Frank Murphy, both Catholics, had records as liberals, while Justice Scalia has been a reliable conservative. Their positions have differed, even on issues covered in Catholic teaching, like abortion.
“I don’t think there is any one Catholic stance on the law,” said M. Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at the University of Notre Dame. “Catholicism is a big tent, so different people are drawn to different aspects of it. A Dorothy Day Catholic is going to be different than an Opus Dei Catholic,” she said. (Dorothy Day founded the Catholic Worker movement that promotes justice for the poor; Opus Dei is a church prelature that promotes personal orthodoxy.)
“You’ll have judges who are pro-life personally who are going to rule that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land,” Ms. Kaveny said. “People recognize that the task of the judge is different than the task of a lawmaker.”
After her father died, Judge Sotomayor was brought up in the Bronx by her mother. She attended Cardinal Spellman High School, an academically rigorous Catholic school, in an era when boys and girls were segregated.
But it was also in the era after the Second Vatican Council, when the church was opening to modern culture. Mass at Spellman High was accompanied by a guitar, and girls were asking why they could not be altar servers, said Jane Morris, who knew Judge Sotomayor while both were student council leaders.
“We were allowed and encouraged to ask a lot of questions,” said Ms. Morris, who is now the girls athletic director at Spellman High. “We were asking, what’s wrong with the other religions, and why do you say everybody else is going to Hell?”
At Princeton, where Judge Sotomayor belonged to a Puerto Rican student group, a group of Latino students attended Mass every week, but she was not among them, a former classmate recalled.
Judge Sotomayor married her boyfriend from high school, Kevin E. Noonan, in a small chapel at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City in the summer of 1976, after both graduated from college, according to a friend of Judge Sotomayor. But within seven years they were divorced, and it is not known whether she obtained a marriage annulment from the church. She has not remarried and has no children.
As a Hispanic Catholic, Judge Sotomayor is part of the church’s most vibrant and growing wing. Hispanic Catholics, studies show, are more liberal than white Catholics on some social and economic issues, like immigration and health care reform, but more conservative on homosexuality and abortion.
Justice Scalia, whose son is a Catholic priest, and Justice Alito are of Italian Catholic ancestry. Justice Thomas is an African-American convert who once went to seminary, left the church for 28 years and rejoined in the mid-1990s.
Lucas A. Powe Jr., a professor of law and government at the University of Texas, Austin, said Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are “Catholic and movement conservatives.”
“That combination is just golden for being anti-abortion and anti-affirmative action,” said Mr. Powe, author of “The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2008” (March 2009, Harvard University Press).
Justice Kennedy, who wrote two decisions favoring equal rights for gay people, is a “country club Republican,” which Mr. Powe described as “an economic conservative without some of the social conservatism.”
The court’s liberal wing is made up of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, who are Jewish, and John Paul Stevens, a Protestant.
The Rev. Joseph A. O’Hare, a Jesuit priest and the former president of Fordham University, who came to know Judge Sotomayor when they both served on the New York City Campaign Finance Board in the 1980s, said: “I just don’t think Sonia would fit in with Roberts, exactly, and certainly not Scalia. I think they’re very different Catholics.”
The concept of LIVING CONSTITUTION is vital for 1% global Wall Street because once they ignored MONOPOLY, ANTI-TRUST, estate taxes to keep extreme wealth and extreme power at bay in the US----they had to make adjustments for global corporate rule. That is why a US Constitution allowing for all kinds of free market freedoms no longer works for US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
One does not get to be President of Harvard unless one is global 1% Wall Street and ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----and indeed Kagan is. Again, just because she is a woman does not make her left-leaning-----she is a far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, Libertarian soon to be Marxism. Remember it is that Marxism the 1% Wall Street will sell as left-leaning when it is simply MOVING FORWARD with US labor pushed into the global labor pool ----$3-6 a day or $20-30 a day------this is what global corporate campus SOCIALISM looks like.
'For Kagan's published scholarship demonstrates that the "living constitution" is alive and well and even growing and changing. That is, this theory of constitutional interpretation, which holds that the constitution should change over time, has itself been modified by Kagan and her generation of liberal judicial activists'.
One would ask---how did a Kagan get past a supposedly Republican Congressional approval-----the answer is that Congress does not have Republicans and Democrats---they have CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global Wall Street pols capturing both parties----and this is why systemic primary election fraud and rigging matters.
BYE BYE CENTURIES OF US CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW COURT RULING PRECEDENCE----WE ARE GOING WITH WHATEVER THESE INDIVIDUAL JURISTS FEEL IS RIGHT----and this is indeed what these few decades of Supreme Court rulings have been----ergo Chief Justice Roberts
'Kagan’s new living constitutionalism, according to which individual jurists breathe the life of their own meanings into our fundamental law, is even less defensible than the earlier version articulated by Justice Brennan'.
Public Discourse Ryan T. Anderson
Founder & Editor
Elena Kagan’s Living Constitution
by Carson Holloway
within Constitutional Law
July 2nd, 2010
Kagan’s advocacy for a living constitution should kill her Supreme Court chances.
As Elena Kagan's Senate testimony concludes, the talk of Washington is dominated by admiration for her artful ability to avoid committing herself to positions that might imperil her confirmation to the Supreme Court. This reaction is ironic, because Kagan entered her Senate hearings having already committed herself in writing to a position that should kill her chances for confirmation. For Kagan's published scholarship demonstrates that the "living constitution" is alive and well and even growing and changing. That is, this theory of constitutional interpretation, which holds that the constitution should change over time, has itself been modified by Kagan and her generation of liberal judicial activists. This updated living constitutionalism, however, is even less compatible with a judge's duty than the old, a problem left largely unexplored by Kagan's Republican critics on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The older version of living constitutionalism was famously defended by Justice William Brennan in his 1985 speech at Georgetown University entitled “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification.” In that speech Brennan rejected calls for a jurisprudence of “originalism” and instead insisted that the constitution should be interpreted in light of contemporary values. Brennan strictly averred, however, that these contemporary values must not simply be the judge’s own values. Rather, the judge’s task is to discern the community’s current interpretation of the constitution, to be guided by the public’s contemporary values, and not by his own idiosyncratic beliefs, in deciding constitutional cases.
The problem is that often a constitutional case demonstrates the existence of an important clash of values within the community itself. Frequently, such a case will involve a clash between a majority whose values have been enshrined in law or policy through the democratic process and an individual or minority that cannot prevail politically and thus has had recourse to the courts. A judge who invokes the “living constitution” to invalidate democratically enacted policy in such a case—and this is a use of living constitutionalism that its proponents have not been reluctant to embrace—is not finding a solution based upon the community’s values. He is rather siding with one part of the community over another, and, again, in many cases siding with a minority position over a majority position. In view of this conflict within the community, and hence the inability of “community values” to give him any clear guidance in the dispute before him, he is deciding which set of values he agrees with or thinks more just and ruling accordingly. That is, he is imposing his own values, which is precisely what Brennan had said must not be done.
In some recently reported and widely defended comments, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has gone much further, suggesting that judges may properly be guided by their own values in deciding cases. In a 1995 review of Stephen Carter’s The Confirmation Mess, Kagan approvingly quoted Carter’s claim that “the interpreter’s own experience and values become the most important data” at a “crucial moment” that arises in most cases heard by the Supreme Court. Then, speaking clearly for herself, Kagan adds that “it should come as no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value.” According to Carter, this is the proper mode of resolving controversial questions such as “flag burning, segregated schools, and executive power,” and Kagan adds that one could cite “countless more” examples.
Supporters of Kagan’s nomination have defended her by pointing out that her views are widely shared by members of the American legal left. In fact, her position is not in principle different than that of President Obama last year when he contended for the role of a judge’s sense of “empathy” in deciding important cases. After all, a judge’s values will inexorably influence which litigants receive the benefit of his empathy. In her book review Kagan reveals herself as, if anything, an even more ardent judicial activist than her presidential patron. In defending his theory of judicial empathy, President Obama went out of his way to insist that the proper legal answer would be clear to a judge or justice in the vast majority of cases, but that empathy would have to come into play in the handful of truly difficult cases that the Court must confront from time to time. In contrast, as the language quoted above indicates, Kagan thinks that a justice’s own values and experiences, and not technical interpretations of the law, will be the most important considerations in “many” and perhaps even “most” cases the Court must resolve.
Kagan’s new living constitutionalism, according to which individual jurists breathe the life of their own meanings into our fundamental law, is even less defensible than the earlier version articulated by Justice Brennan. It is not even an accurate description of what Supreme Court justices do, or at least not an accurate description of how they present what they do. One can seek almost in vain for examples of Supreme Court opinions in which the author even refers to his own experiences and values, let alone deploys them as the decisive considerations for the case in question. In the few cases when such considerations are mentioned, they are often raised so that a Justice can demonstrate his personal sympathy with the side for which he cannot, for legal and constitutional reasons, render judgment.
This is not to say that justices are never influenced by their own values in their work. Any astute observer, by discerning the weakness of the legal reasoning deployed in many cases, can reasonably conclude that the justices could not have been guided by anything other than their own values. The unwillingness of justices to state their personal reasons for the public record, their insistence on crafting opinions in terms of objective legal analysis, suggests that they know that the personalized justice advocated by Elena Kagan cannot stand the light of day. They know that to embrace it openly would be to destroy the Court’s legitimacy by openly flouting long-established, deeply-rooted American expectations about the role of courts in a constitutional democracy.
The idea that judges should be guided by their own values in rendering judgment is not one that anyone can honestly and consistently embrace. For if liberal judges may properly be guided by their own values, then conservative ones can be as well. But does anyone really believe that if a majority of conservative justices were to overturn, say, Roe v. Wade, simply on the basis of the justices’ own moral convictions about abortion, Elena Kagan and her supporters would not complain bitterly about both the outcome and the illegitimacy of the reasoning? In the face of such a difficulty, the proponents of Kaganism must either admit that, as a matter of principle, judges should not be guided by their own values, or claim that only liberal judges may properly be guided by their own values. To admit the former is to surrender their position. To claim the latter is to reveal their jurisprudence as a barefaced exercise of power.
Bush neo-cons have right wing voters concentrating on gun rights while Clinton/Obama have left-wing voters concentrating on their pensions, retirements, and police brutality ----while quite literally rewriting OUR US CONSTITUTION.
Kagan is that INTERNATIONALIST-----she is that global corporate tribunal rule jurist.
'It was under Ms. Kagan's leadership while dean of Harvard Law School, for instance, that Harvard dropped constitutional law as a required course for graduation, while adding a requirement for a course in "International/Comparative Law."
NewsMax is a right leaning media outlet and they have it right. Remember Justice Ginsburg was reaching for foreign legal writings in her writings. Now, some may say we have seen this done in the course of US history----but we were not captured by global Wall Street and global corporations MOVING FORWARD with dismantling our democratic republic, our US Constitution, our Bill of Rights with a guarantee that WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE LEGISLATORS.
This is to where the AMEND THE CONSTITUTION MOVEMENT is going. Policy written by 1% Wall Street-----not any left-leaning group protecting WE THE PEOPLE and our free and fair elections.
These were the goals in Obama's Supreme Court justices and a Hillary will have the same goals with her appointments-----Trump will simply do what Wall Street tells him.
Editorial: Kagan Put Foreign Law Before Constitution
Thursday, 27 May 2010 03:34 PM
Breaking News at Newsmax.com
Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court should founder unless she adequately explains why she quite literally put "International/ Comparative Law" ahead of the U.S. Constitution. Senators should question Ms. Kagan in great depth about her views on the applicability of foreign law in American courts.
Increasing references to international laws and norms in American courts have become controversial in recent years, and deservedly so. During the confirmation hearings for new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Ms. Sotomayor tried to weasel away from past support for judges using the "ideas" of foreign law, and she made a rather categorical statement: "Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent, or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law."
That's right: She said foreign law should not even "influence" a U.S. court decision. That statement is correct, even if Justice Sotomayor's actual record doesn't support it. Ms. Kagan should be held to the standard set by Justice Sotomayor's testimony.
The available evidence suggests that Ms. Kagan's views don't comport with that judicial principle. The first clue came during her confirmation hearings for her current position of solicitor general. Here's what she said: "At least some members of the court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the solicitor general's office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these justices' support for the positions that the office is taking."
Well, no. Even to win a case, it is wrong to argue in favor of something on which it would be wrong to decide. Rather than playing into misguided prejudices of current justices, the solicitor general should argue her position based on the Constitution and laws of our own land, regardless.
The increasingly influential law-and-policy organization Americans United for Life, meanwhile, has raised several other red flags with regard to Ms. Kagan's views on the relative weight of foreign law and the U.S. Constitution. It was under Ms. Kagan's leadership while dean of Harvard Law School, for instance, that Harvard dropped constitutional law as a required course for graduation, while adding a requirement for a course in "International/Comparative Law." The de-emphasis on the Constitution itself is part of a horribly misguided trend in liberal academia. To replace con-law with international law is symbolic of a mindset that runs far afield from the basics of American legal tradition.
In a New Hampshire speech on Oct. 6, 2008, then-Dean Kagan referred to "a transnational perspective" as being "foundational" as "part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century." The academic jargon is instructive: "Transnationalism" is, in the words of radical State Department counsel Harold Koh, the idea that "domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law." Another key supporter of transnationalism goes so far as to argue that "international law is supreme over domestic law."
Senators must ask Ms. Kagan if that is what she means by "transnationalism" being "part of the core" of modern legal thought. If it is, or if it is anything close to it, then she should not be confirmed.
There is a great meme on social media of a small child looking up at a Hillary supporter saying----SO, I'M SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE A CANDIDATE WHO COMMITS NATIONAL PRIMARY ELECTION FRAUD IS INTERESTED IN VOTING RIGHTS?
If American citizens still do not understand what a Bill Clinton EXECUTIVE ORDER CALLED THE FEDERALISM ACT did back in the 1990s----it set the stage for CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA future Presidents embracing a policy of not enforcing Federal law, US Constitutional rights, dismantled Federal agencies allowing for these massive corporate frauds, police abuses, government corruption----and it was written by a Republican Think Tank.
So, Hillary has decades of ignoring all of the NEW DEAL civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, rights of disabled----all of Equal Protection US Constitutional rights----AND WE ARE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT A TRUMP WILL DO? None of these issues would be safe in a global corporate tribunal rule ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE structure.
If a Chinese, Bahraini, Singaporean, Chilean, Nigerian foreign corporation comes to a US Foreign Economic Zone---that global corporation and its executives will operate anyway they want to. No regard to anything other than international trade laws.
It is disgusting how a Hillary campaign has had to fear-monger voters into voting for her. No one knows better than global labor pool immigrants what Clinton global neo-liberalism has done for their nations!
President Donald Trump would transform the Supreme Court—and upend our most fundamental rights.
The fate of the Supreme Court hinges on the next election.
September 14, 2016 by Elizabeth Chan
The fate of the Supreme Court hinges on the next election.
Months after the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans are still refusing to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to give President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, a fair confirmation hearing.
To make matters worse: Our next president might be Donald Trump—and the short list of justices he’d consider nominating includes a judge who upheld a law requiring doctors to restrict reproductive rights and another judge who equated homosexual sex to “bestiality,” “pedophilia,” and “necrophilia.”
If that’s not scary enough, consider this: With three current justices nearing or older than 80 years—past the court’s average retirement age—the next president will likely have the opportunity to nominate several justices to the Supreme Court. And in doing so, she or he could have the power to transform the court, and American law, for generations to come.
Here’s what’s at stake—not just in this election, but for the future of our country:
1. Safe and legal abortion
Trump has proposed banning abortions, going as far as to suggest that women who get them would be “punished.” He’s also stated that he would only support justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that guaranteed American women their constitutional right to safe and legal abortion. Under a Trump presidency—with a court potentially filled with Trump appointees—the right to safe and legal abortion could become be a relic of the past.
2. Voting rights
Shelby County v. Holder gutted one of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a decision that has fueled a coordinated, Republican-led attack on the voting rights of people of color, low-income people, students, and seniors in recent years.
A conservative court would erode voting rights even further.
Just take a look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on North Carolina’s restrictive voting law. In late August, the Court declined to reinstate the law, but only because the justices split 4-4, leaving in place a lower court opinion that had struck it down. That means, if just one additional conservative justice had been on the court, North Carolina could have gotten away with passing a measure disproportionately preventing people of color from voting. In 2016.
Imagine how many similar laws could be passed—and upheld—across the country with a conservative-leaning court.
A conservative court could erode voting rights even further.
3. Marriage equality
The historic Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality was decided by a 5–4 margin. A shift in the balance of power on the bench would provide the conservative wing of the court an opportunity to reverse that decision—an opportunity that a Republican president like Trump would be happy to give them. (He denounced the Supreme Court’s affirmation of marriage equality and said he would consider appointing Justices to overturn it).
4. Campaign finance reform
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections. Since that 2010 ruling, the conservative-led court has declined to revisit that decision—and more conservatives on the court would only work to cement the status quo.
That’s why Hillary Clinton has promised to do whatever it takes to overturn this ruling, including fighting for a constitutional amendment.
5. Affordable health care
The Affordable Care Act has now survived two attempts to strike it down in the Supreme Court—but there are more challenges to the law making their way through the lower courts. Trump has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and you can bet the justices he’d appoint would lead the charge against the law that has given more than 20 million Americans the care they need.
6. President Obama’s executive actions on behalf of DREAMers and parents
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court split 4-4, leaving in place an appeals court ruling that blocked two of President Obama’s most important executive actions: DACA and expanded DAPA, which would have provided relief from the prospect of deportation for DREAMers and the parents of American citizens and lawful permanent residents.
While Hillary would fight for DACA and DAPA and keep families together, Trump is calling for the U.S. to build a wall and mass-deport 16 million people, including American citizens who were born here to undocumented parents. He also wants to permanently end DACA and DAPA, and, in turn, break apart millions of families.
Regardless of who wins in the fall, the balance of the court hangs on this election. So, if you care about a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion; protecting voting rights; marriage equality; getting the outsized influence of money out of politics; giving more people access to health care; keeping families together; or preserving any other fundamental right, it’s time to register to vote.
So, share this article, go to IWillVote.com, and tell your friends to register too. This election really will decide the future of the court—and, as a result, the future of the country.