Kamala Harris: I’m Running “For The People”

Hotair ^ | 01/21/2019 | Ed Morrissey

[morphing libertarian]

No Thanx

——A people

[Amendment10]

Concerned but misguided, institutionally indoctrinated politicians like post-17th Amendment ratification Sen. Harris unsurprisingly don’t seem to understand the following about the fed's constitutionally limited powers.

One of the very few domestic policy powers that the states have actually expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds to serve the people is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7).

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

In other words, citizens who are inspired to exercise constitutional domestic policy powers to serve the people (retirement, healthcare, housing, schooling, welfare, etc.) actually need to get themselves elected as state government leaders to exercise 10th Amendment protected state powers, such powers now limited by the 14th Amendment.

In fact, President Thomas Jefferson had indicated in a State of the Union address that the states would first need to amend the Constitution so that Congress would have the specific powers to regulate, tax and spend for domestic policy issues, something that the states have never done.

"On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]"—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress

A Supreme Court justice and constitutional lawmaker had likewise put it this way about unique state powers to serve the people.

• "The power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states [emphasis added]. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2

• ”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Pre-FDR generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had put it this way.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Like many other misguided modern presidents, Democratic and Republican, all that Sen. Harris's desire to use the Oval Office to shape domestic policy outside the scope of delivering the mail would amount to is an unconstitutional expansion of the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers.

[RooRoobird20]

She will have to “out-free” Dumb@ss LOSER Beto, Gray Beaver, and Gay Spartacus Jazz Hands.

And she will have to play the victim woman and race cards harder than any of her rivals,

[caww]

I'll just leave it right here again

so folks will be sure to see....the truth.

"Excellent summary":

Jamaican-born father, and 'Hindu' Indian mother...

‘immigrants’ who immigrated in 1960’s...parents divorced.

She hired top ‘staffers from the Hillary Clinton campaign’ to work in her Senate office..... telegraphed her presidential ambitions as soon as she arrived in Washington..She brings a record of ‘no’ accomplishments whatsoever.

She’s another establishment politician- college, law school, DA, AG, Senator, grand-stander.

Just to be clear , Kamala’s mother, 'Shyamala Gopalan' was 'Hindu' Indian NOT Native American ...Born in south India.....passed away 2/11/2009 @ 70 yrs.old. a fervent commitment to social justice Shyamala, while a student at 'Berkeley' in the '60s, became fully engaged in the Civil Rights Movement, leading to a lifelong fight against injustice, racial discrimination and intolerance She was the daughter of Rajam and P.V. Gopalan, her father served as a diplomat in the Indian government.

[caww]

Kamala’s Sister, Maya Harris, Served as a Policy Adviser on Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign.....

.Maya Harris speaks at ‘Women Rule' L.A. Summit’ at NeueHouse Hollywood. June 5th, California.

[caww]

Harris has the Clinton/Obama/Holder and Jarrett machinery behind her......she has been groomedto run just like Obama was. Isn't an accident she married just 6 yrs ago at age 49 to a Jewish lawyer with two kids. She had to have a family like Hillary having Chelsy.

[x]

she has been groomedto run just like Obama was

Somebody is promoting her, but as one of 20 or 30 candidates she won't get anything like the support Obama did.

Isn't an accident she married just 6 yrs ago at age 49 to a Jewish lawyer with two kids. She had to have a family like Hillary having Chelsy.

I get that she needs a husband and a family and that he has money, but he may not be a great asset for her politically. A white husband doesn't give her much appeal in the Black community, and a rich lawyer husband doesn't give her much appeal with ordinary voters.

[Boomer]

This rude, confused, angry, unstable, overly ambitious, and worthless in my opinion, commie Marxist is not running for the people or anyone else.

She craves power plain and simple. The absolute worst kind of politician.

[Joe Boucher]

This bitch is unlikable.

[ek_hornbeck]

H Clinton was an anomaly. She had the entire party apparatus behind her and could not lose the nomination. From now on it will be the radicalized Social Justice Warrior

She wasn't such an anomaly. Hillary sounded like a radical Social Justice Warrior on the campaign trail, albeit more on the social and cultural than the economic side. Even though she may have done it for opportunistic reasons, she co-opted the rhetoric of the Democrats' radical fringe very effectively (i.e. her "deplorables" remarks), paving the way for loons like Ocasio-Cortez to be the new face of the party.

On social and cultural issues, there is really no difference between the Bernie Sanders radical fringe and the Clintonite wing of the party. Their difference lies in economics: Clinton Democrats get money and support from Wall Street and Silicon Valley firms and so prefer crony capitalism to socialism, while the Sanders/Warren/Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party is openly socialist.

[SoFloFreeper]

Morgan and Morgan

Democrat lawyers in Florida

[vpintheak]

Communists do everything “for the people”. Up to and including forced labor camps and mass murder.

[dearolddad]

Kamale Harris is running her big mouth. nothing more nothing less.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Kamala Harris: I’m Running “For The People”...as long as they're black, female, poor, uneducated, and illegal - if you don't mind, I'll vote elsewhere, Kamala.....

[caww]

Talk about splitting the votes..LOOLOL

[DMZFrank]

Harris is NOT qualified as a Natural Born Citizen constitutionally eligible for POTUS under Article II, Section 1, clause 5.

Admittedly, the SCOTUS has never ruled directly on the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” with regard to Article II and POTUS eligibility. But in all cases before the court bearing on citizenship wherein they offered a definition of “natural born citizen,” NONE of those definitions fit Harris’s birth provenence.

I want all those concerned about this matter to observe the near and actual hysterical demagoguery that will ensue and is directed against those of us who have the temerity to attempt to obtain “standing” so as to have the Court exercise it’s Article III oversight in this matter. What you hear will be quite instructive.

I remember well the fury directed at us because we asked questions about Obama’s birth provenance and his counterfeit birth certificate. This jive won’t be pretty either.

[arthurus]

And what are you going to do if you catch them?