Elizabeth Warren’s Threat to the Constitution

[The Purge]

 

[SAYIT]

Every Democratic candidate is a threat to the Constitution.

Because it stands for Americans and impedes the imposition of their regressive "Global Worker's Paradise." They would not only force us to reshuffle the economic deck, they would have us share the fruit of our labors with the entire world.

Kumbaya, baby:

 

[The Purge]

 

[alang1216]

The author points out that Warren - Harvard Law's "first woman of color" - is campaigning on a "carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries." I'm saying rather than address that you simply attacked Trump. I'm saying you are either disingenuous or stupid.
Woman of color? She's a commie FRAUD.
Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The author is certainly welcome to their opinion but it will be Congress that enacts any law she proposes, the best she'll do is to sign it into law.

I wasn't attacking Trump so much as pointing out that, to my knowledge, he and every previous president enacted executive actions that were overturned by SCOTUS. I's say that shows that a "contempt" for legal and constitutional boundaries is a presidential prerogative and she'd be no worse than any other president.

 

[Jets]

This article is an exercise in hyperbole. Warren can promulgate her quixotic ideas all she wants. Congress will not allow those items to become law and will use whatever power necessary to prevent it from happening. The GOP reps seem to find ways to neuter Democratic Presidents.

 

[alang1216]

Trump isn't trying to impose anything on the American people with his complaints about impeachment.

I think Trump is showing contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries when he refuses to recognize the House's right to investigate his administration.

 

[BS Filter]

I think Warren is a violent person. She's always talking about fighting.

 

[alang1216]

Alang tried the exact same diversion, asking a totally irrelevant question ("Do you judge Trump and his responses to impeachment in the same light?") rather than facing the truth about the "Native American" regressive who would be Queen.

Note that neither even tried to address the article.

The article is an opinion piece based on a hypothetical Warren executive order. What's to address?

 

[mudwhistle]

Nothing that Warren is proposing is unconstitutional

.....if you live in Russia....

 

[mudwhistle]

Warren offers a carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries. It’s not that she, a former Harvard Law professor, doesn’t know that they exist; it’s that she doesn’t care.

Her broad approach is if she doesn’t like something about America, she’ll act as president to ban it or curtail it, whether she has the legal or constitutional authority or not. This isn’t a trait personal to her. Instead, it is inherent to progressive government, which from its beginnings in the early 20th century strained against constitutional limits it considered antiquated and unnecessary.

One of Warren’s signature domestic proposals is her wealth tax. Without dwelling on the complex legal arguments, her plan is constitutionally dubious, at best, and would instantly end up in the Supreme Court if it ever passed.

Someone scrupulously committed to the Constitution would want to steer clear on this basis alone, but “constitutionally or legally suspect” is the unifying thread of much of the Warren agenda.

As David French points out, her proposed executive order prohibiting fracking obviously runs afoul of a 2005 federal law protecting it from federal regulation. She is promising to do something illegal, pure and simple.

And on it goes. She says she would act unilaterally to expand background checks for gun purchases, circumventing Congress. She wants to tax lobbying, an activity protected under the First Amendment, in yet another constitutionally fraught initiative. She wants to break up Big Tech, although it’s not clear under what authority.

Tellingly, almost no one on her side says, “I appreciate what you’re getting at Liz, but you can’t do that.”

To their credit, a couple of CNN panelists pressed her in July on the constitutional basis of her wealth tax, and she just waved them off.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

A self-declared “Native American Indian” Warren
was TAUGHT by the MSM, the Mass. electorate,
and HARVARD LAW school that she not only can lie,
but will be rewarded by it.

FOR decades, she has been rewarded for lying,
so why would anyone be surprised?

Do you judge Trump and his responses to impeachment in the same light?

What does Liz Warren breaking the law and infringing on civil liberties have to do with Trump?

 

[gipper]

Warren offers a carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries. It’s not that she, a former Harvard Law professor, doesn’t know that they exist; it’s that she doesn’t care.

Her broad approach is if she doesn’t like something about America, she’ll act as president to ban it or curtail it, whether she has the legal or constitutional authority or not. This isn’t a trait personal to her. Instead, it is inherent to progressive government, which from its beginnings in the early 20th century strained against constitutional limits it considered antiquated and unnecessary.

One of Warren’s signature domestic proposals is her wealth tax. Without dwelling on the complex legal arguments, her plan is constitutionally dubious, at best, and would instantly end up in the Supreme Court if it ever passed.

Someone scrupulously committed to the Constitution would want to steer clear on this basis alone, but “constitutionally or legally suspect” is the unifying thread of much of the Warren agenda.

As David French points out, her proposed executive order prohibiting fracking obviously runs afoul of a 2005 federal law protecting it from federal regulation. She is promising to do something illegal, pure and simple.

And on it goes. She says she would act unilaterally to expand background checks for gun purchases, circumventing Congress. She wants to tax lobbying, an activity protected under the First Amendment, in yet another constitutionally fraught initiative. She wants to break up Big Tech, although it’s not clear under what authority.

Tellingly, almost no one on her side says, “I appreciate what you’re getting at Liz, but you can’t do that.”

To their credit, a couple of CNN panelists pressed her in July on the constitutional basis of her wealth tax, and she just waved them off.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

A self-declared “Native American Indian” Warren
was TAUGHT by the MSM, the Mass. electorate,
and HARVARD LAW school that she not only can lie,
but will be rewarded by it.

FOR decades, she has been rewarded for lying,
so why would anyone be surprised?

Her resume and policy proposals are remarkably similar to Obama’s.

I suspect she is a clone of Ears. All hope and change, but really nothing but a naked corporatist warmonger.

 

[SAYIT]

The author points out that Warren - Harvard Law's "first woman of color" - is campaigning on a "carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries." I'm saying rather than address that you simply attacked Trump. I'm saying you are either disingenuous or stupid.
Woman of color? She's a commie FRAUD.
Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The author is certainly welcome to their opinion but it will be Congress that enacts any law she proposes, the best she'll do is to sign it into law.

I wasn't attacking Trump so much as pointing out that, to my knowledge, he and every previous president enacted executive actions that were overturned by SCOTUS. I's say that shows that a "contempt" for legal and constitutional boundaries is a presidential prerogative and she'd be no worse than any other president.

This article is an exercise in hyperbole. Warren can promulgate her quixotic ideas all she wants. Congress will not allow those items to become law and will use whatever power necessary to prevent it from happening. The GOP reps seem to find ways to neuter Democratic Presidents.

Excuse me? Warren specifically said she would use her executive power - because congress almost certainly would not cooperate - as Queen of the USA to impose her vision for America thus bypassing congress altogether. That isn't the author's opinion but rather Warren's own words and the point of the article … the dismissive attitude of the former Harvard Law professor towards our constitution.

 

[SAYIT]

Trump isn't trying to impose anything on the American people with his complaints about impeachment.

I think Trump is showing contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries when he refuses to recognize the House's right to investigate his administration.

And you have the right to your silly opinion but as already noted, it has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.

Are you by chance a Rainman?

 

[Jets]

The author points out that Warren - Harvard Law's "first woman of color" - is campaigning on a "carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries." I'm saying rather than address that you simply attacked Trump. I'm saying you are either disingenuous or stupid.
Woman of color? She's a commie FRAUD.
Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The author is certainly welcome to their opinion but it will be Congress that enacts any law she proposes, the best she'll do is to sign it into law.

I wasn't attacking Trump so much as pointing out that, to my knowledge, he and every previous president enacted executive actions that were overturned by SCOTUS. I's say that shows that a "contempt" for legal and constitutional boundaries is a presidential prerogative and she'd be no worse than any other president.

This article is an exercise in hyperbole. Warren can promulgate her quixotic ideas all she wants. Congress will not allow those items to become law and will use whatever power necessary to prevent it from happening. The GOP reps seem to find ways to neuter Democratic Presidents.

Excuse me? Warren specifically said she would use her executive power - because congress almost certainly would not cooperate - as Queen of the USA to impose her vision for America thus bypassing congress altogether. That isn't the author's opinion but rather Warren's own words and the point of the article … the dismissive attitude of the former Harvard Law professor towards our constitution.

Warren can bloviate all she wants. It isn’t going to happen. It’s braggadocio on her part. Isn’t the GOP supposed to retake Congress?

 

[gipper]

The author points out that Warren - Harvard Law's "first woman of color" - is campaigning on a "carefully thought-out agenda of open contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries." I'm saying rather than address that you simply attacked Trump. I'm saying you are either disingenuous or stupid.
Woman of color? She's a commie FRAUD.
Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The author is certainly welcome to their opinion but it will be Congress that enacts any law she proposes, the best she'll do is to sign it into law.

I wasn't attacking Trump so much as pointing out that, to my knowledge, he and every previous president enacted executive actions that were overturned by SCOTUS. I's say that shows that a "contempt" for legal and constitutional boundaries is a presidential prerogative and she'd be no worse than any other president.

This article is an exercise in hyperbole. Warren can promulgate her quixotic ideas all she wants. Congress will not allow those items to become law and will use whatever power necessary to prevent it from happening. The GOP reps seem to find ways to neuter Democratic Presidents.

Excuse me? Warren specifically said she would use her executive power - because congress almost certainly would not cooperate - as Queen of the USA to impose her vision for America thus bypassing congress altogether. That isn't the author's opinion but rather Warren's own words and the point of the article … the dismissive attitude of the former Harvard Law professor towards our constitution.

Warren can bloviate all she wants. It isn’t going to happen. It’s braggadocio on her part. Isn’t the GOP supposed to retake Congress?

It doesn’t matter who wins the White House or Congress. In the end, the .1% will always control the government.

 

[alang1216]

What does Liz Warren breaking the law and infringing on civil liberties have to do with Trump?

Nothing since Liz Warren has broken no law and infringed on no one's civil liberties. Trump's record on law breaking and civil rights violations is still being written.

 

[alang1216]

Trump isn't trying to impose anything on the American people with his complaints about impeachment.

I think Trump is showing contempt for legal and constitutional boundaries when he refuses to recognize the House's right to investigate his administration.

And you have the right to your silly opinion but as already noted, it has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.

Are you by chance a Rainman?

Grampa was nice enough to respond to my comment, it seemed I owed him a reply. I never intended to run afoul of the thread police.

Does a Rainman know he's a Rainman?

 

[SAYIT]

What does Liz Warren breaking the law and infringing on civil liberties have to do with Trump?

Nothing since Liz Warren has broken no law and infringed on no one's civil liberties. Trump's record on law breaking and civil rights violations is still being written.

Yeah … sure it is:

 

[alang1216]

What does Liz Warren breaking the law and infringing on civil liberties have to do with Trump?

Nothing since Liz Warren has broken no law and infringed on no one's civil liberties. Trump's record on law breaking and civil rights violations is still being written.

Yeah … sure it is:

If Trump knew he was innocent why did he need to obstruct the investigation? The same can be asked about the Ukraine phone call.

 

[mudwhistle]

What does Liz Warren breaking the law and infringing on civil liberties have to do with Trump?

Nothing since Liz Warren has broken no law and infringed on no one's civil liberties. Trump's record on law breaking and civil rights violations is still being written.

Yeah … sure it is:

If Trump knew he was innocent why did he need to obstruct the investigation? The same can be asked about the Ukraine phone call.

Trump didn't obstruct the constant investigations the Dummycraps are using to get re-elected in their districts. His cooperation on record is much better than the lack of cooperation from the Obama administration on Benghazi, the IRS harassment scandal, and the Hillary email investigation. In all three cases the administration destroyed evidence, threatened witnesses, and even claimed the 5th to avoid answering the questions.