Elizabeth Warren’s Threat to the Constitution

[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:

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

Or perhaps he didn't need to at all but rather has chosen to poke our thumb in the eyes of our petulant House Dems. The pompous jackasses act and speak as if they were elected POTUS and if I was Prez I'd tell the twits and twats to get back in their sandbox and do some pounding.

OTOH Pelosi has had months to do something real but still chooses to play silly games. Why do you think that is? A lack of support perhaps?

Pelosi: No House vote on impeachment inquiry
The decision came after Democratic leaders, returning to Washington following a two-week recess, had reached out to members of their diverse caucus to gauge the party's support for such a vote.

 

[alang1216]

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.

How many administration officials have the Trump administration forbade to testify before Congress? I'll make it easy, how many just this month?

 

[alang1216]

Or perhaps he didn't need to at all but rather has chosen to poke our thumb in the eyes of our petulant House Dems. The pompous jackasses act and speak as if they were elected POTUS and if I was Prez I'd tell the twits and twats to get back in their sandbox and do some pounding.

He didn't need to but chose to provoke a Constitutional crisis to poke his thumb at the Dems? Sounds rather childish and petulant to me. The House Dems was duly elected just as Trump was and are acting within their Constitutional authority, I'm not sure you could say the same of Trump. It is Trump who is acting like a pompous jackass. He wasn't elected King and does not outrank the Congress.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

How many administration officials have the Trump administration forbade to testify before Congress? I'll make it easy, how many just this month?

I think to be fair we have to take the last 3 years of fake investigations into consideration, not just this latest sham of an inquiry.

It's gotten out of hand when the President's political enemies are presenting admittedly false evidence into the record.....and then claim it as the entire basis for the inquiry.

 

[g5000]

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?

Bad news!

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional


Mind you, I detest Warren and her plan to tax everyone more. But a wealth tax is not unconstitutional.

 

[SAYIT]

Or perhaps he didn't need to at all but rather has chosen to poke our thumb in the eyes of our petulant House Dems. The pompous jackasses act and speak as if they were elected POTUS and if I was Prez I'd tell the twits and twats to get back in their sandbox and do some pounding.

He didn't need to but chose to provoke a Constitutional crisis to poke his thumb at the Dems? Sounds rather childish and petulant to me. The House Dems was duly elected just as Trump was and are acting within their Constitutional authority, I'm not sure you could say the same of Trump. It is Trump who is acting like a pompous jackass. He wasn't elected King and does not outrank the Congress.

Provoke a "constitutional crisis?" That is Mourning Joe and Miserable Mika speak.

And if anyone is provoking anyone or anything it is our Hysterical House Dems who have painted themselves into that impeachment corner and have no choice but to plow ahead because they can't beat Trump in 2020.

They do a lot of screaming and foot stomping but as of yesterday Pelosi still can't muster the votes:

Pelosi: No House vote on impeachment inquiry
The decision came after Democratic leaders, returning to Washington following a two-week recess, had reached out to members of their diverse caucus to gauge the party's support for such a vote.

 

[alang1216]

I think to be fair we have to take the last 3 years of fake investigations into consideration, not just this latest sham of an inquiry.

It's gotten out of hand when the President's political enemies are presenting admittedly false evidence into the record.....and then claim it as the entire basis for the inquiry.

I think to be fair we have to take the last 25 years of fake investigations into consideration.

 

[Third Party]

Nothing that Warren is proposing is unconstitutional

Or sensible

 

[alang1216]

Provoke a "constitutional crisis?" That is Mourning Joe and Miserable Mika speak.

If the House issues a subpoena that is ignored by the Pres, that says "constitutional crisis" to me. Seems like the rule of law is in peril, just like in Russia and North Korea. That is not a path the US should go down.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think to be fair we have to take the last 3 years of fake investigations into consideration, not just this latest sham of an inquiry.

It's gotten out of hand when the President's political enemies are presenting admittedly false evidence into the record.....and then claim it as the entire basis for the inquiry.

I think to be fair we have to take the last 25 years of fake investigations into consideration.

Knock yourself out.

We've established that Bubba committed perjury and obstruction of Justice in front of a Grand Jury.

That is beyond dispute.

 

[The Purge]

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?

Bad news!

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional


Mind you, I detest Warren and her plan to tax everyone more. But a wealth tax is not unconstitutional.

Suggest you write the author of the article and hash it out with him, moron!

 

[g5000]

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?

Bad news!

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional


Mind you, I detest Warren and her plan to tax everyone more. But a wealth tax is not unconstitutional.

Suggest you write the author of the article and hash it out with him, moron!

I suggest you stop parroting liars.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

I couldn't get past the ridiculous lies about her wealth tax being unconstitutional. That's a lie.

In fact the constitution gives the government the power to impose and raise taxes.

If it did go to the Supreme Court it wouldn't be thrown out. It's perfectly constitutional to impose a tax.

If the rest of your post is as ridiculous at the first part you seriously need to learn US History, our constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments.

 

[The Purge]

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?

Bad news!

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional


Mind you, I detest Warren and her plan to tax everyone more. But a wealth tax is not unconstitutional.

Suggest you write the author of the article and hash it out with him, moron!

I suggest you stop parroting liars.

And I suggest you get truthful talking points!

 

[The Purge]

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?

I couldn't get past the ridiculous lies about her wealth tax being unconstitutional. That's a lie.

In fact the constitution gives the government the power to impose and raise taxes.

If it did go to the Supreme Court it wouldn't be thrown out. It's perfectly constitutional to impose a tax.

If the rest of your post is as ridiculous at the first part you seriously need to learn US History, our constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments.

Are you as upset about a unconstitutional impeachment inquiry and lack of transparency questioning witnesses without the president having the right to also ask witnesses questions ?

 

[The Purge]

Oh my.....

Lobbyists argue Warren's plan to tax federal lobbying would be unconstitutional

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

Are they not in violation by their constant unyielding harrasment of his administration at the cost of completely ignoring their legitimate duties?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nothing that Warren is proposing is unconstitutional

A "wealth tax" is in direct violation of the 5th Article of Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That also goes for any civil forfeiture laws.

Just because our government does it, and our corrupt politicians approve, does not make it constitutional or just.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

Bad news!

A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional


Mind you, I detest Warren and her plan to tax everyone more. But a wealth tax is not unconstitutional.

The fucking ABA???

No lawyer respects that bogus organization.

 

[MAGAman]

Nothing that Warren is proposing is unconstitutional

Even if Democrsts invented a Stupid-Ray, shot it at every American and somehow got Pocahontas elected...

None of that would pass.