The campaign item question that intrigues me the most right now is guns.
The Second Amendment does not grant to Americans the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment PROTECTS that PRE-EXISTING RIGHT from government infringement. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights to Americans, it PROTECTS EXISTING rights from government interference.
Bluntly, the Constitution tells government to butt-out of anything to which the government is not granted authority.
And they’re told pretty bluntly to butt-out of our guns: “shall not be infringed.”
SCOTUS has held, multiple times, that the Second Amendment is the protection of an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep & bear arms.
Given that 2A protects an individual right to keep & bear arms, and that, regardless of how many votes any nominee gets, they still MUST take the oath of office and swear to protect & defend the Constitution that guarantees our right to own a gun, in order to hold office as president…. HOW can ANY of the probable Democrat nominees, but particularly Hillary, who already has said she’ll go around the Constitution if she wants to, honestly take the oath of office?
They cannot. If they can’t take the oath of office, the Constitution says they can’t hold that office.
If the oath means ANYTHING, if the CONSTITUTION means anything, Bernie & Hillary ALREADY have disqualified themselves for office – by the Constitutional requirements of THAT OFFICE.
One need not just win an election to be president. Article 2 states:
“Before he [the president-elect] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: — ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'” (emphasis mine)
It seems pretty simple that if one is attacking the rights protected BY the Constitution, one cannot also be defending & protecting that Constitution.
So…. what now?
Can SCOTUS really imagine that none of 320M citizens have “standing” to sue to remove any nominee already pledged to defying the Constitution when ALL 320M of us would be harmed by a president of a Constitutional Republic rejecting the Constitutionally-required oath of that office – and, hence, the Constitution itself… and the basic Rule of Law that is America?
Maybe SCOTUS had better start thinking about it.
The last time some ruler ordered us to turn in our arms, America was born as a land of free people living in liberty under the Rule of Law – and more than willing to take-on and defeat the strongest military in the world for that freedom.
Does SCOTUS – do Democrats – really think we have changed our minds and no longer are willing to fight for our freedoms, our rights, our liberty under the Rule of Law?
… and we aren’t about to start now.
If Congress and/or SCOTUS wants to prevent the disaster of a president not honestly taking their oath, maybe they oughta think about it now, while there’s still time
Congress is perfectly capable of passing legislation along the following lines:
When pursuing Constitutional office, the public statements of candidates, or private statements that become public, that are at odds with current Constitutional interpretation by SCOTUS of the Bill of Rights, shall disqualify those persons from that Constitutional office as being unable to take honestly the Constitutionally-required Oath of Office.
Obama might veto this, but he might not – is any president really going to veto a bill that says the Constitution means what it says in plain English?
But even if he does, it doesn’t matter. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it REQUIRES an officeholder swearing to be subservient TO that Constitution in order to hold any office UNDER that Constitution.
Congress then could sue at SCOTUS demanding a ruling on the oath of office. If it means anything at all, then those rejecting it in their quest for office have disqualified themselves for the office they seek.
Not sure how SCOTUS could say anyone in a republic under law would lack standing to sue someone making a campaign pledge of ignoring the Constitution which is the basis of their office, of SCOTUS, of Congress, and of ALL LAW in the United States… in order to be president of our Constitutional Republic.
Either way, if one of these anti-Constitutional Democrats does win, I expect an organization or individual with the money to do so, to lodge immediately a suit that, based on that candidate’s multiple statements against the common belief of our Constitution, supported by multiple rulings from SCOTUS, that candidate is ineligible.