Inevitably, Kagan's defenders in academia will point out that the Constitution is applied throughout the curriculum at Harvard and any other school of law and is therefore not needed as a required course of study. However, if you apply the same line of logic to other fields of study, such as American Foreign Policy, or U.S. History, it is easy to understand the significance behind omitting 'American' and 'U.S.' from a course simply because it may be implied.
In the changes she implemented as dean, Kagan advocated the philosophical convergence of the policies and laws of our nation and that of others. And, if the narrative coming out of one of our nations most "prestigious" law schools sounds familiar, look no further than comments made by the President at the recent West Point graduation ceremony. "All hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population."
In the past year and a half we have seen a movement spread like wildfire, advocating the simple message of a return to common sense in government. Comparisons to other nations and "perspectives provided by other disciplines" are not needed to restore our government to the way our Founding Fathers intended. Instead we should adhere to the principles that have made our nation great; fiscal responsibility, free markets, individual liberty, and protection from government infringement into our lives, defined by the Constitution.
What the American people must understand is that the fight for restraint in government will not just be won in the halls of Congress, but also in our courts. As a practioner of the current administration and its policies, Kagan will bring to the bench a global perspective on our laws and policies, while applying the Constitution as "optional."