Justice Kagan Is Wrong on the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the Constitution was added to the Constitution in 1791 because many feared that the national government would become so powerful that it would erode our democracy and take away our ability to freely participate in the political system of our nation. If the government attempts to prohibit you from speaking freely about an issue, the First Amendment will be your protection. As you can clearly see in it, it prevents Congress from making laws that prohibit you from speaking freely. It reads:

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, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It clearly does not say that Congress SHALL pass any sort of laws, and it appears to clearly prohibit the government from passing laws which would force others to support certain candidates that they do not support. And yet, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan seems to think the First Amendment says the exact opposite. In a recent decision, she wrote:

"The First Amendment’s core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate."

The word that I focus on is 'foster'. 'Foster' is a positive and active word; she choose this word because in her mind, the First Amendment is not a barrier to an over-reaching government, but rather is some sort of empowering act that gives the government more power, power to take property from others and then distribute it to candidates that it favors. To her, the amendment does not stop government, but rather allows government permission to violate the rights of citizens, as long as government employees can justify the violations under some sort of vague and arbitrary standard by claiming that these violations are 'healthy' and create 'robust debate.'

Elena Kagan is dangerously extreme and her interpretation of the Constitution and the laws that govern our nation are flat out wrong. She may have more degrees than me and been a good friend of Obama, but if she thinks that the core purpose of the First Amendment is to empower an active government to take property from some people and give it to other people that no one wants to listen to so that she feels better, than she is no more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than my dog.