remember Kamala's promise to attack the Constitution

[eman623]

How will she do that, please share this apparent plan.

Go back and read her own words. Congress has 100 days to do what she says, or else she'll start issuing EOs and ruling by executive fiat.

You know, the same way that Trump said he would be a dictator on day 1 by using EOs to overturn the most odious parts of Biden's agenda. The left misconstrued that all out of proportion so it's only fair if Kamala gets the same treatment.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Which would be struck down by any sensible-thinking court.

I hope that she's learned better what can and cannot be done by Presidential EO since 2019.

Obama Executive Order on Guns didn't he?
Biden ?

were they struck down ?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Go back and read her own words. Congress has 100 days to do what she says, or else she'll start issuing EOs and ruling by executive fiat.

I did, and that is not an attack on the Constitution. A president can issue EOs, and she put the pressure on Congress to do so and didn't threaten them right away. So are objecting to EOs as a whole, or just the ones Harris is interested in applying?

You know, the same way that Trump said he would be a dictator on day 1 by using EOs to overturn the most odious parts of Biden's agenda. The left misconstrued that all out of proportion so it's only fair if Kamala gets the same treatment.

But he framed it in the context of dictatorship, while Harris did not.

 

[eman623]

I did, and that is not an attack on the Constitution. A president can issue EOs, and she put the pressure on Congress to do so and didn't threaten them right away. So are objecting to EOs as a whole, or just the ones Harris is interested in applying?


But he framed it in the context of dictatorship, while Harris did not.

Fair enough, but she did lecture Congress to do what she wants on her timetable like they work for her. They do not. That's not how it works.

The executive and legislative are two separate and co-equal branches.

Trump is not going to be an actual dictator. Neither is Harris, but if she uses the language of a dictator, well what is sauce for the goose is gravy to the gander.

 

[Rich2018]

sounds Kamala-ish

not very much in keeping with our Democracy though

She'll do the best she can for the country, unlike Trump who'll do the best he can for Donald Trump.

 

[RF667799]

She'll do the best she can for the country, unlike Trump who'll do the best he can for Donald Trump.

An altruistic virtual saint vs a greedy monster.

It's almost like a fairy tale.

 

[hecatmoggie]

She'll do the best she can for the country, unlike Trump who'll do the best he can for Donald Trump.

and everyone had that same great hope 4 years ago ? For the past year they've all said Biden was 100% running again as the candidate?

"best" ? anti-police, anti-border security, anti-gun, I have no idea really on ANY of her platform ideas because SHE DID NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE she was literally GIVEN it

all I can find is what she ran on in 2019/2020 when nobody wanted her and the failure of the 1 job she had in 4 years as VP

and Biden's side-kick which I assume means she was ok with all he was failing at too

 

[Rich2018]

and everyone had that same great hope 4 years ago ? For the past year they've all said Biden was 100% running again as the candidate?

Because he thought he was the best man for the job
Anyone with the determination to get elected as president needs to have pretty strong determination.

"best" ? anti-police, anti-border security, anti-gun

Does anti-FBI = "anti-police" ? MAGA is anti FBI
Since when has Kamala Harris been anti-border security. Being pro-border security does not mean building a worthless excuse for a border fence, that in many places is falling down
Supporting gun control is a GOOD thing.

I have no idea really on ANY of her platform ideas because SHE DID NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE she was literally GIVEN it

Kamala Harris is not yet the official Democrat nominee for the presidential election.
If she does indeed become this, it will be because she is the most popular candidate in the Democrat party.

all I can find is what she ran on in 2019/2020 when nobody wanted her and the failure of the 1 job she had in 4 years as VP

and Biden's side-kick which I assume means she was ok with all he was failing at too

All you could find was what ?
Kamala Harris' agenda and policies are not determined by your (lack of) internet search skills.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

so you would have allowed Cruz to have guns ? is a simple question

I would have used the law to take them away instead of violating the US Constitution.

Would you have violated the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and taken his guns without due process (when you lacked the right)?
simple question

I'm thinking you're prefer red flag laws had stopped Cruz - as would Trump, as would I
and you're complaining about it ? Florida Red Flag laws now - are they used to stop bad people? do you support them?

Why TF would you think I was complaining about red flag laws?

I clearly said the issue is that
Trump is deranged, depraved, degenerate, dotard who thinks it's okay to violate the 2nd Amendment.

What about you?

Do you think it's okay to violate the 2nd Amendment?
simple question

 

[Rich2018]

I would have used the law to take them away instead of violating the US Constitution.

Whereas I would amend the US Constitution.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Whereas I would amend the US Constitution.

still beats violating it

 

[KingLeo]

Even Jefferson wrote that the Constitution is not a static document.
The founders even put measures in place to amend the Constitution and while that is not a simply process, nor should it be, the founders foresaw that the needs of the society might dictate it happening.
Harris is not attacking the Constitution, she is saying there are things that should be changed, updated, etc. to fit modern society.

 

[Rich2018]

still beats violating it

Yes, amending the Constitution would be a better pathway.

 

[VySky]

She'll do the best she can for the country, unlike Trump who'll do the best he can for Donald Trump.

She has no idea what is best for me or the country for that matter

 

[VySky]

Yes, amending the Constitution would be a better pathway.

Pipe dream

 

[ColdHardTruth]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

AUGUST 2019
While addressing union members at a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2019, Harris was asked by the conservative outlet The Washington Examiner if any of her proposals for a “process of a ban in certain kind of guns” would involve creating a database of gun-owners or a more active role by law enforcement ( here ).

Harris responded by talking about her experience as California Attorney General (AG), when her office “put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists.” She explained this criteria as: “A list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others, and were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership.”

The entries of these lists, Harris said, were combined and then law enforcement was sent out “to take those guns.” ( here ). Harris clarified that it was necessary to separate “legal good ownership” from other gun-related issues, including the ownership of assault weapons.

The Senator did not specifically state that these measures implemented as California AG would be a part of her executive action on gun control, if elected President.

Can you provide a link?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

She has no idea what is best for me or the country for that matter

That is your opinion.

What is best for the country is keep as many republicans out of office and away from professional licensure as possible.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I would have used the law to take them away instead of violating the US Constitution.

Would you have violated the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and taken his guns without due process (when you lacked the right)?
simple question



Why TF would you think I was complaining about red flag laws?

I clearly said the issue is that
Trump is deranged, depraved, degenerate, dotard who thinks it's okay to violate the 2nd Amendment.

What about you?

Do you think it's okay to violate the 2nd Amendment?
simple question

Trump was talking about a single individual

fact

don't bold/text size me .....

 

[JMB1911A1]

It's why Congress needs to act, but they've abdicated their ability to do so and instead punt to the executive and judicial branches. The key piece here is there is recourse against EO's legally, so their merit (or lack there of) can be challenged. I don't think EOs on gun legislation are the way to go, so what she's actually able to do will be tempered by the realism of what will definitely get challenged in court.

True. The real question is what will she attempt to do or direct the DOJ/ATF to do? The ATF has gotten smacked down a lot lately with all

 

[hecatmoggie]

Can you provide a link?

I always can

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/kamala-harris-gun-proposal/index.html

 

[JMB1911A1]

Just half measures. There can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a gun ban.

Like Venezuela?

They banned private gun ownership in 2012.

Venezuela bans private gun ownership

Venezuela brings in a new law banning the commercial sale of guns and ammunition, in an attempt to control worsening crime rates.

www.bbc.com

Now, Maduro sends armed thugs to voting places to ensure his leftist regime wins every election.

 

[natman]

Please cite where she said she would attack the Constitution. Last I checked, the Constitution is a collection of Amendments and not just one. Executive orders are within the framework of executive branch's purview, and you'll notice she deferred to Congress first rather than resorting EO first. Also, laws to amend the constitution or modify what's codified in it is part of the political process.

Let's take a look at what Harris proposed:

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

There is some room for executive action, but not nearly enough to implement redefining a more than 5 guns per year requirement.

That's Congress' area and it doesn't matter if she goes to them first or not. Harris' statement reflects the Democratic viewpoint that they will stop at nothing to implement their agenda, regardless of separation of powers, the Supreme Court or the Constitution.

She's free to try the constitutional amendment process. It's worth noting that only 10 states have enacted "assault weapon" bans. It takes a 2/3 vote of Congress and 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment, neither of which the Democrats have.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Whereas I would amend the US Constitution.

You need 38 states to agree with you. We only need 13 states to block you.

29 states have permitless/constitutional concealed carry. I don't think you have the votes.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Like Venezuela?

They banned private gun ownership in 2012.

Venezuela bans private gun ownership

Venezuela brings in a new law banning the commercial sale of guns and ammunition, in an attempt to control worsening crime rates.

www.bbc.com

Now, Maduro sends armed thugs to voting places to ensure his leftist regime wins every election.

almost like the Govt needs to get rid of citizens guns before they can really take the actions they want to huh ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Let's take a look at what Harris proposed:

There is some room for executive action, but not nearly enough to implement redefining a more than 5 guns per year requirement.

That's Congress' area and it doesn't matter if she goes to them first or not. Harris' statement reflects the Democratic viewpoint that they will stop at nothing to implement their agenda, regardless of separation of powers, the Supreme Court or the Constitution.

She's free to try the constitutional amendment process. It's worth noting that only 10 states have enacted "assault weapon" bans. It takes a 2/3 vote of Congress and 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment, neither of which the Democrats have.

she will be the most anti-gun EVER

Obama was bad, Biden is worse ... Kamala is the most leftist candidate possibly ever