Last night something stuck out to me in Hillary’s answer about the Supreme Court and how she views the Constitution. First off, she completely dodged the question of whether or not she’s an originalist or someone who believes it’s a “living document,” although we all know she’s the latter, but that’s not even the issue.
When she spoke of the type of person she would put on the Court, she described things that aren’t listed anywhere in the Constitution and said whoever she nominates would have to be willing to fight for/uphold them. She said the Court “needs to stand on the side of the people, not on the side of corporations and the wealthy,” then listed off gay marriage, “women’s rights” (as if there’s not equality or something), and Citizens United – a decision from the Court she’s had an issue with from the start because it all stemmed from a movie that portrayed her in a negative light.
Anyway, she showed us just how dangerous she would be to our rights – all of our rights – if she were elected. Not once did she mention an actual right that’s enumerated in the Constitution or trying to protect them, only fabricated “rights” that were created hundreds of years after the Constitution was written. As for our **actual** rights, like our First, Second and Fifth Amendments, she’s all for either revoking or restricting them for certain people.
Take Citizens United, for example. She wants to overturn it because she says it’ll get “dark money” out of politics, which is what she believes has “corrupted our democracy,” but what “dark money”? Corporations are legal entities which are comprised of people – people associating and assembling how they see fit – and those people don’t lose their rights just because they formed a corporation. What she’s essentially saying is that because people chose to associate in a for-profit group that they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in our political process, which has very, very dangerous implications, especially if you believe in slippery slopes.
Think about it, if she is able to put people on the Court who are willing to arbitrarily revoke First Amendment rights based upon ideological beliefs, then who else would be at risk of losing their First Amendment rights if said Justice had ideological differences with them? That’s not to mention, once that precedent is set, where does it end? Today, if you’re a part of a corporation (mind you, she’s not specifying what **type** of corporation) then she doesn’t believe you have a right to voice your support or opposition for a candidate or party, so what other qualifiers will she come up with, that her new Justice will go along with, to decide who should and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in our democratic process?
A terrifying thought if there ever was one.
Now let’s look at her response to the Second Amendment. She’s repeatedly said that she believes the Court got it wrong when deciding Heller v. District of Columbia. In Heller, a man sued the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds over its outright ban on handgun ownership and the requirement that legally-owned guns be kept non-functional while they’re in your home, rendering them completely ineffective for self-defense. Hillary claims the case was about toddlers – a COMPLETE and TOTAL lie – but really it was about the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense under our Constitution. Ultimately, the Court decided in favor of Heller, overturning the law that banned handgun ownership and reaffirming that we do, in fact, have the right to own firearms outside of public service and for the purpose of self-defense.
The fact that Hillary believes that the Court decided this wrong speaks volumes about her views on the Second Amendment. If Heller affirmed we have the individual right to keep and bear arms, and she thinks that Court decided Heller wrong, then she obviously believes we don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s not a logical leap to come to such a conclusion, her own words spell it out for us.
Plus, when speaking on the Second Amendment, Hillary also stated that she doesn’t believe either the mentally ill or those on no-fly lists should be allowed to purchase firearms for any reason. On the surface, both sound like reasonable restrictions to place on gun ownership in the name of public safety, but they also pose a serious conflict with our Fifth Amendment right to Due Process.
When she says the mentally ill shouldn’t be able to own firearms, she doesn’t specify what she means by mental illness, which has become a very broad term. But in her mind, anyone diagnosed with some form of mental illness should have their Second Amendment right revoked without Due Process – a right guaranteed to us under the Fifth Amendment. What happens if those opposed to climate change are deemed mentally ill? Or perhaps those refusing to toe the left’s ideological line?
The same holds true for her support of stripping rights from those placed on government watch lists. Simply appearing on one would be enough to have your right to bear arms revoked without ever being convicted of a crime, a trial, or having a judge review the case. Your name would be flagged by the FBI when you applied for a background check, and your purchase would be denied, all because someone in government, for reasons unknown because we’re not allowed access to the lists they keep, decided you pose some sort of a threat, but not enough of one to issue an arrest warrant and give you your day in court – undoubtedly a flagrant violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Again, if she nominates a Justice that would uphold violations of our right to Due Process based only on the suspicion of a crime, then what other rights could we lose based only upon suspicion? Would they allow those on terror watch lists to be indefinitely detained without ever having a trial? Would they allow the government to search the homes of people on watch lists without a warrant? Would they revoke the voting rights of someone placed on said lists?
What’s even scarier about this idea is that nobody knows what criteria is used to put people on these lists. As of now, it’s assumed that those involved with Islamic terror are flagged to go on the list, but think about how quickly that can change. We saw the IRS become a political weapon during the 2012 election, when it refused to issue non-profit status to conservative groups, so what’s to stop the agencies responsible for placing people on watch lists from doing something similar and targeting political adversaries?
With Hillary and others on the left often referring to “right-wing extremism,” which we really have yet to see, is it really that far of a leap to think that she’d abuse her executive authority to enact backdoor gun control through the use of terror watch lists if she was able to tilt the Court to the far-left? Given that she already (indirectly) said she doesn’t believe in the individual right to bear arms, it’s not a stretch in the least. Plus, don’t forget that the Obama administration’ Department of Homeland Security released a memo in 2009 warning of “Rightwing Extremism” that identified “enemies of the state” based solely upon ideological differences such as “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” so the groundwork has already been laid.
Indeed. With every major issue regarding our Constitution, Hillary has come down on the wrong side of it by allowing her ideology to take precedence over the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights. Her views aren’t only dangerous to our right to self-governance and to live as a free society, but if allowed to pursue her agenda she’d create a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen.