Why can’t this Never Trumper vote for Harris

This Never Trump recognizes the dangers of the Harris-Walz mandate, some of them serious, to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment, and to significant essential structural elements of the main body of the Constitution.

And that’s before taking into account all of her radical political preferences, both domestic and foreign mention her anti-Catholicism or her inexcusable cheap shot of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh both after and before absurd sexual assault allegations were leveled against him. And more.

Let’s start with Harris’ threats to the First Amendment, which are the most obvious and egregious. It has shown hostility to all four guaranteed freedoms – speech, press, assembly (or “association”) and religious practice.

Just this week, Harris reiterated his stance against free exercise, which should scare anyone. When asked directly whether she would recognize “religious exceptions” of the sort that would exempt dedicated, traditionalist Christian doctors from performing abortions, she replied: “I I don’t think we should make any concessions when we talk about the basic freedom to make decisions about one’s own body. This is consistent with the law it introduced in 2019 and with policies the Biden-Harris administration tried to impose unilaterally in 2022 before being blocked by the courts.

This refusal to recognize religious exceptions, even in cases where a doctor believes he or she would commit murder, should be anathema to anyone, whether pro-life or pro-choice, who has even the slightest idea of ​​the meaning of freedom, let alone basic decency. This is not about abortion itself, but about state coercion. It is one thing for a government to prohibit personal actions that are harmful to others, but it is another and deeply dangerous for a government to enforce actions that are contrary to a person’s faith or conscience.

Even in the one situation in which state coercion has been accepted in virtually every society since time immemorial – namely, the recruitment of citizens for common defense – this nation has always allowed for “conscientious objectors” who instead serve in the state or as doctors. Again, even for people who believe there is a “right” to abortion, Harris’ position should be considered a moral atrocity.

Meanwhile, where freedom of assembly and speech intersect, what the Supreme Court describes as “freedom of association“Harris is so radical that the supreme court rebuked her stance it would undo a landmark victory not of some right-wing group, but of the NAACP. And where the modern press, in the form of social media, intersects with speech, Harris and running mate Tim Walz have repeatedly insisted that the government can require platforms to censor content, and that “hate speech” should be limited.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Harris is famous for supporting “mandatory buybacks” for certain guns. When it comes to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Harris’s entire record, in which she repeatedly calls for the nationalization of almost every issue and law, is hostile to the principles of federalism and “the rights of the people.”

It is worth mentioning here, while discussing several but important, unenumerated rights, privileges and immunities The Constitution has always assumed, and the Supreme Court has always affirmed, is that The Biden-Harris Administration’s Hostility to Parental Rights it is one of the most dangerous trends in the history of American politics and law. Just this week Daily signal, IN focusing on length on this terrible trend reported that in 2023 the Department of Justice awarded a grant that the publication described as “encouraging (encouraging) judges to adopt an ideological framework that pits children against parents who do not support their chosen identities.”

As in the case of the free exercise of religion, the basic principle here does not concern a specific political flashpoint, i.e. abortion or transgenderism, but the fundamental rights related to them – in this case, parental rights, which are a hallmark of the civilized world.

As for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, they all deal with aspects of criminal or civil justice and due process. Without focusing on individual provisions, suffice it to say that Harris as a prosecutor was a train wreck on these fronts.

It’s true that Harris has a strange, multiple personality when it comes to crime. On the one hand, its overall approach as self-proclaimed “progressive prosecutor” it was about her essence soft throughout crime areas and covering radical anti-bail organizations And “oppose the police“efforts. On the other hand, when it comes to using the full power of the government to create examples of those it elects or to protect its own territory, it is willing to abandon almost any procedural protection.

The gold standard analysis in her files regarding the trampling of rights appeared in a 2019 column not in some right-wing publication, but in a liberal one New York Timesby law professor Lara Bazelon. Key summary quote: “Harris fought hard to uphold wrongful convictions resulting from government misconduct that included evidence tampering, perjury, and prosecutors’ concealment of key information.” In one example, Bazelon wrote that Harris tried to cover up wrongdoing committed by a lab technician. Ultimately, the judges ruled against Harris and dismissed a staggering 600 cases due to violations committed by the lab technician.

On a direct and personal level, Harris has demonstrated an extreme disregard for honesty and decency in making accusations and even in assigning guilt. While she generally supported the riots surrounding the situation, she insisted that a Wisconsin police officer “should be charged” with the shooting death of knife-wielding Jacob Blake – only for her own administration’s Department of Justice to join the rest of law enforcement in finding that the officer he didn’t do anything he deserved. criminal prosecution.

And when I opposed Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, no tactic was too low for Harris, no slander was over the line. It wasn’t just that she accepted an extremely questionable story Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She also believed and demanded an FBI investigation into the patently absurd and despicably defamatory allegations that Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes at Atlantic beach parties.

But the most disparaging part was the episode Harris designed before Ford’s speech. It has to be seen again to be believed. Repeatedly ambiguous that Kavanaugh had some unethical or illegal contact with an unnamed employee of a huge law firm, but while refusing to name the employee or why anything was wrong, Harris repeatedly criticized Kavanaugh for not admitting to the connection that a supposedly impeccable source reported she was wicked.

The goal was to make Kavanaugh appear evasive and dishonest. However, after the entire, protracted episode ended and after many negative headlines appeared about Kavanaugh, Harris never raised the issue or expressed her concerns again. Two San Francisco Chronicle however, news reporters saw through the ruse, in piece titled “Kamala Harris’ viral grilling of Kavanaugh ends with a bang.” No court would ever allow the contentless, slanderous grilling that Harris inflicted on a candidate.

When you are her target, you are her target; all truth, justice and procedural rules will be condemned.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So, even before he gets scared Harris extremist record as the most left-wing member of the Senate, as someone willing consider racial reparationspress senseless leftist economics, sympathize radical student protesters, intentionally letting in millions of illegal immigrants, packing the Supreme Court, destroying the filibuster, and supporting the $83 billion Green New Deal, among a host of other terrible policies… again, even before all this, Harris fails the basic test of commitment to protection and defense of the Constitution.

Harris may be right that former President Donald Trump poses a “threat to democracy” in various respects. But that’s what it is. Clearly and disturbingly.