Nominee for SCOTUS Justice, Elena Kagan, may have disqualified herself from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court with her statement under oath that conflict directly with the founding documents of the USA.
This exchange happened during her confirmation hearings between her and Senator Coburn:
Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.
Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.
Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.
Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.
Kagan in her own words said she will not uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In signing the Declaration of Independence, for the first time in history, the people reduced government from master to servant. Government was proclaimed to derive its powers only from the consent of the governed. Kagan is claiming that the law and government is master over the people. She said that the law supersedes unalienable rights. SCOTUS Nominee Kagan has determined that the Declaration of Independence Null and Void for the citizens of the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that life and liberty are the unalienable gifts of God, natural rights, which no person or government can rightfully take away. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given unalienable individual rights. The Constitution is definition of how our government is instituted based on the purpose set forth in the DOI.
The idea that there are no natural or unalienable rights, only the law is tantamount to declaring that the government determines right not the people. Clearly Kagan is not qualified to sit as justice to the SCOTUS.