Elizabeth Warren’s Threat to the Constitution

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,860
400
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?
 
Nothing that Warren is proposing is unconstitutional
 
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?
 
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?
Another lame Alang deflection. Regardless of how anyone views Trump's unwillingness to bend over for our Hysterical House Dems, Warren admits she will ignore our legislative process and crown herself Queen.

And that, after all, is the topic of this thread ... at least pretend to stick to it.
 
Last edited:
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?
Another lame Alang deflection. Regardless of how anyone views Trump's unwillingness to bend over for our Hysterical House Dems, Warren admits she will ignore our legislative process and crown herself Queen.

And that, after all, is the topic of this thread ... at least pretend to stick to it.
You're saying that if a president makes an executive action that ends up in the SCOTUS, they are threatening the Constitution? Isn't that exactly how the system works? Can you name a past (or current) president that has not been taken to court?
 
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?
Another lame Alang deflection. Regardless of how anyone views Trump's unwillingness to bend over for our Hysterical House Dems, Warren admits she will ignore our legislative process and crown herself Queen.

And that, after all, is the topic of this thread ... at least pretend to stick to it.
You're saying that if a president makes an executive action that ends up in the SCOTUS, they are threatening the Constitution? Isn't that exactly how the system works? Can you name a past (or current) president that has not been taken to court?
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? :laughing0301: She's a commie FRAUD.
Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'
 
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?

Just as a matter of interest, any chance of you posting your education qualifications on the Constitution...

Next thing the Superbowl wasn't in the Constitution so we will have to ban that too because Obama liked it...
 
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?

Just as a matter of interest, any chance of you posting your education qualifications on the Constitution...

Next thing the Superbowl wasn't in the Constitution so we will have to ban that too because Obama liked it...

I post an article written by someone else and you as a fucking demonRAT are following their lead and want to know about me things that has no relevance to what has been posted....But you first, Mr. Schitt!
 
Progressives view of America is not America at all, it’s Europe...
 
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?
Trump isn't trying to impose anything on the American people with his complaints about impeachment.
 
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?
/——-/ And the same democRATs who will vote for the assault on the constitution want to impeach Trump for making a phone call.
 
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?

Just as a matter of interest, any chance of you posting your education qualifications on the Constitution...

Next thing the Superbowl wasn't in the Constitution so we will have to ban that too because Obama liked it...

I post an article written by someone else and you as a fucking demonRAT are following their lead and want to know about me things that has no relevance to what has been posted....But you first, Mr. Schitt!
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top