To “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
This is the way
Before he 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." - U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8
Most Americans are familiar with the oaths of office most politicians must take before assuming their roles in government. Those oaths all call for the oath-taker to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution. Kamala Harris is now using this as a campaign talking point:
And the tragic truth, the tragic truth that we are facing in this election for President of the United States is that there is actually an honest question about whether one of the candidates will uphold the oath to the Constitution of the United States.
In that post, she captured a clip from the following video taken at one of her campaign events:
Since she believes this to be a critical cause, let’s take a look at her own stance and record on upholding the Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides a good outline to guide us in this pursuit.
First Amendment
Much ado has been made of Kamala Harris calling for “X” to be taken down, when in reality, the video clip alleging this was from 2019 and was saying Donald Trump’s Twitter account (Twitter had not yet been purchased by Elon Musk and subsequently renamed “X”) should be suspended or shut down. That said, even given the context, she was clearly calling for censorship, not just of Trump, but through regulation of social media platforms. You can watch the videos in full context on the Internet Archive beginning with this clip and watching the next three clips as well.
Though she claimed Trump had threatened the life of a whistleblower, she provided no evidence to support the claim and even the interviewer questioned her on that and the slippery slope that follows.
She also wants to “hold social media platforms accountable” for “hate” and “misinformation.”
Like it or not “hate” is protected speech. We should not endorse or encourage hate. We should not take pleasure in it. But we must not censor it. As for “misinformation,” who gets to judge or decide what is “misinformation”? The same government that showered us with misinformation about Covid and countermeasures? The same media that constantly lies? Never mind that her campaign itself has been misleading users on X, as even CNN had to admit.
Harris’ own running mate, Tim Walz, in the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, also called for limitations on free speech, spuriously citing the bogus bromide that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”
Second Amendment
Harris’ record on the Second Amendment is an amalgamation of the lie that she doesn’t want to “take your guns” and advocating stringent gun control including mandatory “buy-backs.” She has said, on more than one occasion, that she would do such via executive action.
She also believes a ban on AR-15s is “consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Alexander Hamilton disagreed. Hamilton explicitly explained in the Federalist No 29 that the people should be armed (and trained) equally to (if not better than) any standing military, so that the government having a standing military could never pose a threat to the rights of the people:
…if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186
Yes, “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment was specifically written to protect the right of the people to own…wait for it…weapons of war, so that the people could protect their rights from tyranny; it is not about hunting (or sporting).
Nevertheless, in 2008 Harris was a signatory on an amicus brief submitted to SCOTUS in the D.C. v Heller case. That brief urged the court to adopt a view of the Second Amendment that denies the Amendment protects the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms.”
But even the Heller decision guaranteeing that individual right doesn’t stop Kamala from insisting we need to reinstate the “assault weapons ban,” because it’s always the assault weapons, right?
Side note: contra Kamala’s “belief,” there is no “right to be safe.” By definition, liberty entails risk.
Of course, you can never get Harris, or anyone who shares her perspective, to define “assault weapon” using terms other than the ambiguities “black,” “scary,” “high-capacity,” “kill a lot of people quickly” (any firearm is capable of that, as are many other “arms”), etc.
Heck, even the director of the ATF, Steve Dettelbach, when asked to define an assault weapon said to Congress, “I…am not a firearms expert…”
As if to emphasize his lack of expertise, he went on Face the Nation, along with one of his “experts,” and both exposed their ignorance (inadvertently, of course, but…).
But Harris doesn’t want you to have these weapons, and if you do, she has even gone so far in the past as to say that she would “walk into” gun owners’ homes to ensure they’re storing their firearms “safely.”
Around the same time as the above video, in 2005, San Francisco was weighing a ban on all handguns, a proposition that Harris, as DA, supported.
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments go hand-in-hand, protecting people’s rights to security/privacy, due process, and speedy, public trials by impartial jury with witnesses and counsel. Together, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect citizens against unlawful search and seizure of property without a duly authorized warrant sworn on oath and due process. Yet Kamala supports measures that violate these rights when she comes out in support of red flag laws (also called “Extreme Risk Orders”):
EROs call for seizure of a person’s property prior to evidence of any crime and devoid of due process.
Harris’ current superior, Joe Biden, during the 2019 Democrat presidential primary debate in Detroit, called Harris out on her record as San Francisco District Attorney, claiming she oversaw “a police department when she was there that, in fact, was abusing people's rights” and that, under her tenure, exculpatory evidence was being withheld. Harris denied Biden’s accusations, but, Politifact provided a post-debate fact check confirming mostly what Biden said as accurate.
Her record as a prosecutor shows a habit of subverting people’s rights, subverting justice, and subverting the law (despite her many, many campaign claims to be the candidate who champions justice and law). Articles from SFGATE and CalMatters reveal a disturbing pattern of disregard for the ideals expressed in these three amendments, and for the legal-justice system in general.
As Attorney General of California, her record is just as lackluster when it comes to upholding the tenets of these amendments, as an article in the Bulwark further details.
Tenth Amendment
Most people, when they hear “Tenth Amendment” automatically think “States’ Rights.” The aspect of the Tenth Amendment often overlooked is its restriction of the power of the federal government to that, and only that, which is spelled out in the Constitution.
There are few purposes for which Congress is permitted to raise (and spend) funds. Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from 1812-1845 and one of history’s foremost Constitutional scholars wrote:
The power of taxation is not, however, unlimited in its character. The taxes levied must be (as we have seen) either to pay the public debts, or to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. They cannot be levied solely for foreign purposes, or in an aid of foreign nations, or for purposes not national in their objects or character.
Familiar Exposition of the Constitution, §157
That hasn’t stopped our current government from sending billions overseas, and not without Harris’ support (just think “Ukraine”). In this vein, Kamala recently wrote on X that “…the United States will provide nearly $157 million in additional assistance to the people of Lebanon…”:
Neither do healthcare and medical issues and policy fall within the constitutional powers allocated the federal government. While abortion is not “healthcare” (it’s murder, and there are already nationwide laws prohibiting murder), proponents view it as “healthcare,” and in that light, SCOTUS was right in overturning Roe v Wade and sending it back to the states. Harris, however, sees this as a “woman’s rights” issue that she believes belongs to the federal government.
Lastly, I’ll point out that, despite her now claiming she wants to secure it, Kamala Harris has been part of an effort to avoid enforcing our migration laws, part of the legal battle to keep the border open for illegal crossings, and involved in the plot to fly immigrants illegally into the interior and “parole” them into our cities. I have already documented her complicity in intentionally failing to stop the flood.
Conclusion
There is much, much more I could point out with regard to Harris, but it is clear that, contrary to her campaign claptrap, she has no intention of honoring any oath to protect, preserve, and uphold the Constitution. She has never done so before; don’t expect she will if elected President.
To be clear, none of this is to say that Trump is some pure constitutionalist either. Like Harris, Trump promoted Red Flag laws. He was responsible for the (unconstitutional) bump stock ban (which has since been overturned). Trump partnered (through finance and fastrack) project Warp Speed that fed billions to pharmaceutical companies in the name of stopping a virus. He did, however, seek to secure the border, and in general to allow states to handle issues that don’t belong to the federal government.
In reality, there are few (probably can be counted on one hand) in office who uphold their oaths of office, and we rarely have candidates who will not violate it, despite their many promises to the contrary. They get away with it because most Americans have no understanding of the Constitution itself, and most vote based on emotion, not reason. Is there a candidate in this race who will truly uphold the Constitution? Likely not. Is there one of the two major party candidates who will do a better job of it than the other? Yes, and it is not Kamala Harris.
I'm not sure Kamala Harris knows what the constitution is!
For someone who SUPPOSEDLY graduated law school, passed the BARR, and PRACTICED law in multiple ways, she has NO CLUE what the Constitution says. She is onevof those who tries to say that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" thing. IT IS NOT. As has been so rightfully said before, the Constitution says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't.