Changes

Kagan opposed military recruiters from being at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which attempted to prevent homosexual relations in the military. She characterized it as “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order … a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.”<ref>[http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34854  FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 18, 2009]</ref>  

Kagan opposed military recruiters from being at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which attempted to prevent homosexual relations in the military. She characterized it as “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order … a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.”<ref>[http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34854  FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 18, 2009]</ref>  

Some have charged Kagan with duplicity in this issue, for not opposing a $20 million from a prince in Saudi Arabia in 2005, a country in which homosexual acts are punishable by death or flogging." The funds were used to create the ''Center for Islamic Studies'' in honor of Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/16/senate-republican-accuses-kagan-staying-silent-saudi-gift-harvard/print ''Senate Republican Accuses Kagan of Staying Silent on Saudi Gift to Harvard']', Fox News, June 16, 2010</ref>

Some have charged Kagan with duplicity in this issue, for not opposing a $20 million from a prince in Saudi Arabia in 2005, a country in which homosexual acts are punishable by death or flogging." The funds were used to create the ''Center for Islamic Studies'' in honor of Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/16/senate-republican-accuses-kagan-staying-silent-saudi-gift-harvard/print ''Senate Republican Accuses Kagan of Staying Silent on Saudi Gift to Harvard']', Fox News, June 16, 2010</ref>

Regarding [[Capital Punishment]], In her Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009, Kagan also stated, “I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional.”<ref>http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p303</ref>

Regarding [[Capital Punishment]], In her Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009, Kagan also stated, “I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional.”<ref>http://documents.nytimes.com/elena-kagan-documents#document/p303</ref>

Kagan also apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the [[Clinton administration]]'s assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power.<ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref> However, in an 2001 article in the Harvard Law, Kagan wrote that while she largely welcomed Clinton's expanded  presidential control, she cautioned, “President Clinton’s assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan’s assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.”<ref>New York Times, Politics, ''Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings'', May 9, 2010</ref>

Kagan also apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the [[Clinton administration]]'s assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power.<ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref> However, in an 2001 article in the Harvard Law, Kagan wrote that while she largely welcomed Clinton's expanded  presidential control, she cautioned, “President Clinton’s assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan’s assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.”<ref>New York Times, Politics, ''Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings'', May 9, 2010</ref>

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional,<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17</ref>   

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional,<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17</ref>