Did you now, I just read today, that the National Archives, back in 2021, placed a trigger warning upon the Constitution and the Declaration of independence?
. . . wow. . . that probably should have been a warning that this type of stuff was going to explode.
How does that related to this clip?
When someone in the DNC, or on the left says, (I paraphrase here,)
"the Department of Justice & the HHS has put Alabama law makers on notice that denying queer kids these medical services might violate the Constitution,"
This very fact, means, we have two nations in our country, who have two radically different understandings of the Constitution. One part of the country, is a nation, who no longer believes in the "literal," Constitution. . . hell, they put a "trigger," warning on it, so how can the WH press secretary sit up there and claim the Dept. of Justice is going to use it to further their politics?
. . . and we have another part of the country, who believes, the constitution is there to tell the government what it can't do to the people, not what it must do to them. It is there to outline the enumerated power of the government.
Trigger Warnings Placed on America’s Founding Documents
When Leftists Say They Love ‘The Constitution,’ They Don’t Mean The Real One
The progressive project at its core means subverting the original American Constitution and its promise of securing Americans' natural rights.
thefederalist.com
“The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution,” says historian Christopher Caldwell. “They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible—and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out.”
“Much of what we have called ‘polarization’ … is something more grave,” Caldwell continues. “It is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy … or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators.”
Since the 1960s, we’ve seen this emphasis on civil rights expand into a push for a woman’s “right” to abort her baby, the “right” to socialized medicine, and now the “right” of men to demand that others pretend they are women.. . . "