Kagan embraces notion of living Constitution

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Seems she has a bad case of heartburn talking about the founders. Shes all wigglin around and shite. She even knows whats in their consciousness! My goodness she is so awesome.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[natty bumppo 297]

Seems she has a bad case of heartburn talking about the founders. Shes all wigglin around and shite.

so she got butt fvcked .... why else would she wiggle so hard?

[evli1966 88]

Seems she has a bad case of heartburn talking about the founders. Shes all wigglin around and shite.

That is because she really only knows Shite about the US constitution.

She is all about international law and wants the US constitution to bend to the will of international law whether it infringes on our rigths or not.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

so she got butt fvcked .... why else would she wiggle so hard?

Shhhhhhhh. dont ask dont tell!

That is because she really only knows Shite about the US constitution.

She is all about international law and wants the US constitution to bend to the will of international law whether it infringes on our rigths or not.

Trash in - Trash out! November is cleaning time for us!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Corporations are composed of individuals, collectively engaged in an endeavor. It's not that the corporation has all the rights of a citizen, as an entity, but under the right to freely assemble, all those individuals still retain their rights under the first amendment.

Bull. Corporations now enjoy first amendment rights whether they're composed of individuals that both individually and collectively enjoy first amendment rights (citizens, residents and individuals present in the US) or whether they're composed of foreign nationals that do not individually or collectively enjoy those rights. Besides, are you going to sit there and claim that corporations influencing elections take a vote first within their population of individuals entitled to first amendment rights on which way elections should be influenced?

[evli1966 88]

Bull. Corporations now enjoy first amendment rights whether they're composed of individuals that both individually and collectively enjoy first amendment rights (citizens, residents and individuals present in the US) or whether they're composed of foreign nationals that do not individually or collectively enjoy those rights. Besides, are you going to sit there and claim that corporations influencing elections take a vote first within their population of individuals entitled to first amendment rights on which way elections should be influenced?

perfect example is UNIONS.

the UNION Leadership more often than not does not mimic the voice of the memebers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

perfect example is UNIONS.

the UNION Leadership more often than not does not mimic the voice of the memebers.

How is that even relevant in the discussion?

[Heracles 417]

Corporation predate the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble[/b], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Must have missed this key word.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Booyah!

[evli1966 88]

How is that even relevant in the discussion?

Are you serious?

That was insupport of what you wrote.

Union leaders are the voice of the union memebers excercising 1st amendment rights quite often and trying to enfluence politicians to their own agenda.

Unions are considered corporations/organizaions that represent their memebers.

And most memebers are often puzzled to why their own views differ from that of the Union at least politically.

No they do not take a vote to what direction the Union leaders follow when it comes to politics.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

She is not an "originalist" in any sense and it is fraud to say so.

I DO believe the constitution is a living document, there are procedures to change it, and it has been changed many times. But I will note the following...

1. There is no procedure to change any item in the "Bill of Rights" since they specifically state those things that the government CANNOT change.

2. The Supreme Court is NOT the method, branch or body to change the constitution.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I guess it could make a difference at some point, but she is replacing as leftist a judge as has ever been on the court, so for the time being it is "zero sum gain". I supose after a few more changes she could become a tie-breaker, but that is a long way from happening. Also it is very rare for the Supreme Court to overturn the Supreme Court, regardless of the facts of the case or the politics of the judges.

With any luck she will be the last judge Obama appoints and his influence will cease when he is UNelected in 2012, provided he allows us to HAVE elections in 2012.

We can flop around all we want, but she WILL be confirmed by the Senate. Unfortunately her confirmation is coming before we get the chance to FIRE most of the Senators that will vote for her in November.

[IndigoSkies 168]

There are no international laws. There are only international treaties. All countries who sign on to the treaties are expected to abide by them and not enact internal laws or rules that are contradictory to the treaties. Take for example Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to UDHR, all person's have right to nationality. So US cannot, shouldn't enact any laws that deprives of a human being the right to nationality.

Have a read http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It's a brilliant document.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Must have missed this key word.

English must be your second language.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bull. Corporations now enjoy first amendment rights whether they're composed of individuals that both individually and collectively enjoy first amendment rights (citizens, residents and individuals present in the US) or whether they're composed of foreign nationals that do not individually or collectively enjoy those rights. Besides, are you going to sit there and claim that corporations influencing elections take a vote first within their population of individuals entitled to first amendment rights on which way elections should be influenced?

Foreign owned corporations are still bared from participating in US elections, despite Obama's claim to the contrary. Kagan has affirmed that during the hearings already.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Foreign owned corporations are still bared from participating in US elections, despite Obama's claim to the contrary. Kagan has affirmed that during the hearings already.

What about US owned corporations with substantive business and staff overseas?