Does Elena Kagen have a $20 million commitment to destroying the American Republic?

Yahoo Answers ^ | 4/24/2012 | Alan M Gottlieb

[IbJensen]

What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal?

That Supreme Court Justice is Elena Kagan.

The year after Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office with the goal of restoring America to greatness; Elena Kagan penned a telling and disturbing senior thesis titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In that body of work, Kagan lamented that "a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States"; and that," no "radical party" had yet "attained the status of a major political force." Kagan went on to sound a rally cry for "those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."

Apparently, this was no mere college dalliance, as the Elena Kagan has spent the rest of her career working to remove the underpinnings of freedom and destroy the American Constitution from within. And Kagan's grand plan has worked very well indeed.

After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law. And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy's resources to accomplish ones' true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal - a noted Shariah Law proponent - to implement an "Islamic Studies" program.

-snip-

[Graewoulf]

Thank you for reading and acting on it.

Love your idea of letter writing a talking head in the LAM, (Liberal Agenda Media).

A helpful suggestion: add “USA,” or “US,” or “American” as a modifier to the word “University” in the question that we should pose to those who have no nose for the non-vetting of Obama .

BTW, do you hear it? There it is again:

Meanwhile, the drumbeat of Dictator Obama grows louder:

regulate -— control -— destroy -— Regulate -— control -— destroy -— REgulate -— control -— destroy -— REGulate -— control -— destroy -— REGU

[newzjunkey]

Isn’t the time for this to come to light during confirmation hearings, not after the fact?

[IbJensen]

Let’s blame those RiNOs serving at the time in the rotten Senate!

[XenaLee]

That’s nothing. If Obama cheats/slimes/cons his way into a second term (and with mosts cons refusing to vote for Romney, that’s looking more and more like a given)....

he’ll pull out all the stops to fundamentally transform America into the leftist and Muslim s-hole that he wants it to be. And don’t put ANYthing past his tactics in marginalizing, neutralizing and/or getting rid of his opponents.

[Monorprise]

As I recall republicans were in such a minority there was nothing they could do.

[Cicero]

They could have stalled and filibustered and used all the tricks that the Democrats used to block nominees like Bork. But nobody did much of anything.

Lots of Republicans actually voted for the Wise Latina. I disremember how many of them voted for Kagan. But their performance was certainly pretty dismal.

[JediJones]

See post #15. Just a couple more than that voted for Sotomayor. The gang of RINOs are the ones that made a filibuster impossible.

[Albion Wilde]

Holy Shiite, a traitor to American law and justice has her skinny butt on our Supreme Court.

You're wrong. Her butt is fat.

[Scoutmaster]

It was well known that Kagan removed the basic common law classes that all freshmen had been required to take, and replaced them with courses in international law and “positive law”—i.e., the law is whatever the rulers say it is.

Are you telling me that 1Ls (they're not freshmen) didn't take Torts, Contracts, or Property? What's the source for 'remov[ing] the basic common law classes"? Kagan isn't qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, but I think there may be a misunderstanding about removing 'the basic common law classes."

[Scoutmaster]

Here's the deal. Constitutional Law is ConLaw. It usually does, and should, hold a sacred and special spot in law school. If Kagan removed it from the required curriculum shame on her. But that's ConLaw, not "the basic common law classes." And I'll wager that most students elected to take ConLaw (although that wouldn't excuse removing basic ConLaw as a required 1L class).

The 'basic common law classes' are going to be Torts, Contracts, and Property. 1Ls will frequently learn Federal Civil Procedure, but that's not common law. Some schools require Criminal Law as a 1L class, and that's a blend of ConLaw, common law, and statutory law.

What I'm saying is that 'basic common law' and ConLaw/Constitutional Law aren't considered the same thing. The first is a necessary foundation for practicing law. The second is a necessary foundation for being a free citizen.

[Cicero]

That's what numerous articles said at the time. And I think there was an article in Harvard Magazine. According to these sources, they took a couple of years to discuss changes in the law school curriculum, and what they came up with was a shift in the required core courses from Common Law to Positive Law and International Law, those terms all being mentioned specifically. Basically, it ties in with the idea that the Constitution is a "living document," and that law should change over time--in a liberal direction, of course. Here are extracts from a speech Kagan gave in 2008, in response to criticism of her curricular reforms. She did not eliminate all aspects of Common Law, but she certainly diminished its importance in favor of Positive Law, International Law, and what she refers to as LegReg--Regulatory legislation. In the circumstances, and under attack in the Washington Times and elsewhere, it may be assumed that she downplays the size and degree of these changes. ============ 1L reforms: The foundation of legal education is the 1L curriculum. What students learn during their 1L year shapes their sense of what law is -- its scope, its limits, its possibilities. For this reason, we focused much of our attention on this critical first year. What we did: Like most law schools, with minor variations, Harvard Law School's traditional first-year curriculum included civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts - all worthy and important subjects but insufficient in themselves for all we need to accomplish. Ultimately, what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes - one focusing on the statutory and regulatory aspects of law, one looking at law in a comparative or international framework, and one where students work in teams to resolve the sort of complex problems that lawyers so often confront. And to the traditionalists among you -- please don't despair! We didn't eliminate Civil Procedure or Contracts -- or any other basic 1L class. We made way for our new offerings by slightly paring the rest. Our students -- and our professors -- seem to have survived. Curriculum update: The students who arrived last September -- members of the HLS Class of 2010 -- were the first to experience these new offerings, and early reports are everything we could have hoped for. Through intensive work with statutes and regulations from the start of law school, students are developing a rich understanding of the institutional frameworks and modes of the regulatory state -- and they and their professors have been happy to find fertile connections between these materials and the rest of the first-year program. Indeed, this course -- which students call LegReg for "legislation and regulation" -- was the most favorably evaluated of any course in the first-year program last year -- a remarkable accomplishment for a new class and its teachers. The courses in international and comparative law are opening up new questions and possibilities, showing choices made by different societies and challenges that arise from globalization, while also helping every student to locate American law in the larger map of laws, politics, and histories across the world -- a critically important endeavor. 1L reforms in real-world context: In recent weeks, I suspect that all of us watching the global credit meltdown and the desperate legislative efforts to resolve the crisis have a new appreciation for the powerful roles of legislation and regulation and a transnational perspective. These recent events underscore that these matters are foundational -- are part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century. This reality must be reflected in the curriculum of the 21st-century law school, and I'm proud that HLS is leading the way in this direction.

[Cicero]

Oops, sorry, the bold face destroyed my paragraphs. Posting again.

---

That’s what numerous articles said at the time. And I think there was an article in Harvard Magazine.

According to these sources, they took a couple of years to discuss changes in the law school curriculum, and what they came up with was a shift in the required core courses from Common Law to Positive Law and International Law, those terms all being mentioned specifically.

Basically, it ties in with the idea that the Constitution is a “living document,” and that law should change over time—in a liberal direction, of course.

Here are extracts from a speech Kagan gave in 2008, in response to criticism of her curricular reforms. She did not eliminate all aspects of Common Law, but she certainly diminished its importance in favor of Positive Law, International Law, and what she refers to as LegReg—Regulatory legislation.

In the circumstances, and under attack in the Washington Times and elsewhere, it may be assumed that she downplays the size and degree of these changes.

---

1L reforms: The foundation of legal education is the 1L curriculum. What students learn during their 1L year shapes their sense of what law is — its scope, its limits, its possibilities. For this reason, we focused much of our attention on this critical first year.

What we did: Like most law schools, with minor variations, Harvard Law School’s traditional first-year curriculum included civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts - all worthy and important subjects but insufficient in themselves for all we need to accomplish. Ultimately, what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes - one focusing on the statutory and regulatory aspects of law, one looking at law in a comparative or international framework, and one where students work in teams to resolve the sort of complex problems that lawyers so often confront. And to the traditionalists among you — please don’t despair! We didn’t eliminate Civil Procedure or Contracts — or any other basic 1L class. We made way for our new offerings by slightly paring the rest. Our students — and our professors — seem to have survived.

Curriculum update: The students who arrived last September — members of the HLS Class of 2010 — were the first to experience these new offerings, and early reports are everything we could have hoped for. Through intensive work with statutes and regulations from the start of law school, students are developing a rich understanding of the institutional frameworks and modes of the regulatory state — and they and their professors have been happy to find fertile connections between these materials and the rest of the first-year program. Indeed, this course — which students call LegReg for “legislation and regulation” — was the most favorably evaluated of any course in the first-year program last year — a remarkable accomplishment for a new class and its teachers. The courses in international and comparative law are opening up new questions and possibilities, showing choices made by different societies and challenges that arise from globalization, while also helping every student to locate American law in the larger map of laws, politics, and histories across the world — a critically important endeavor.

1L reforms in real-world context: In recent weeks, I suspect that all of us watching the global credit meltdown and the desperate legislative efforts to resolve the crisis have a new appreciation for the powerful roles of legislation and regulation and a transnational perspective. These recent events underscore that these matters are foundational — are part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century. This reality must be reflected in the curriculum of the 21st-century law school, and I’m proud that HLS is leading the way in this direction.

[Scoutmaster]

"what we decided to do was to supplement this standard curriculum with three new required classes"

Okay. According to your post, the 1L curriculum included the classes I mentioned: civil procedure, criminal law and procedure, torts, property, and contracts. It wasn't a case of me being lucky or smart. Those are simply core 1L classes.

But your posts also doesn't say that any of these classes were eliminated - the 'basic common law" ones being torts, property, and contracts. It says the standard curriculum was 'supplemented' with three new classes. Only one of the three dealt with international law. One was on complex issues. That makes sense; in the real world few legal matters are simply "hey, that's a fee simply determinable! We win!"

One is on legislation and regulation. I took classes in those areas, just not general classes and not as a 1L. The sad fact is that it would be virtually impossible to practice law today without understanding how legislation is interpreted and enforced by regulation. (I hate that, although two federal laws and the accompanying regulations have basically been my career; I advice people on how to keep the government at bay.)

You and I could probably spend a long afternoon agreeing on how judicial activism and liberals have perverted the Constitution - but as a conservative attorney, a member of the Federalist Society, I don't see anything in this new curriculum that scares me. And I don't see a thing about bowing to imperial law, or shifting to "Positive Law." You may not have quoted all you meant to quote, because I didn't see the term "Positive Law" "mentioned specifically." And we do live in a 'regulatory state." You need lawyers to protect you from that as much as the government needs lawyers to ensnare you in that (although I wish we only needed two lawyers, total, in the nation). At some point we need lawyers who understand the 'regulatory state' to dismantle it, solely because Semtex and C-4 don't work. (That was a joke, Homeland Security)

I'm simply not distressed by these changes in the curriculum, but I appreciate your concern for the Constitution.

[Usagi_yo]

Fantasy on your part. Rightly or wrongly, Obama was certified by Congress as the winner of the presidential election.

You can’t remove him, you can’t even sue him (you as in you). What you can do is not vote for him and convince others to not vote for him. You won’t be changing anybodies mind with this fantasy of Obama being frogmarched out of the Whitehouse.

[IbJensen]

Did you know that Obomba killed bin Laden?

If that isn’t reason enough to re-elect him for yet another four years I don’t know what is.

(He had some undefined help from the military.)

[OneWingedShark]

>All of his appointments would be voided as would all of the bills he has signed.

Nah, our Stalwart Defenders of the Republic in the House and Senate will simply deem the laws signed and appointments approved.

Now that is the proper level of cynicism.

[OneWingedShark]

>Checks and balances? Weren’t we supposed to have them somehow?

The Constitution Declaration of Independence provides all the checks and balances that a legitimate American government needs. All that is required is for a People committed to defending the God-given rights of themselves and their neighbors, willing to shed sweat, tears, blood, gold and even their lives...that's the missing piece.

Fixed.

[snowrip]

Snowe will be replaced by King, who is even further left if it will make him some money. He is one sleazy POS.

[kempster]

I hear yee..

[Borax Queen]

Could she, Elena Kagan(ovich) be related to the Stalin’s butcher of Ukraine - Lazar Kaganovich????

omg... I wouldn't be surprised. She looks like pure evil. Another mass genocide of history that the leftists, here and abroad have, nearly successfully, kept quiet/hidden/records destroyed. The Communists of Hollywood won't make any movies about their crimes against humanity.