Back before the most recent acts of terror and ambush attacks on police dominated the news cycle, Hillary Clinton gave a speech and an interview on Constitutional Rights. Her views on what is or is not a constitutional right and government’s role in “regulating” rights are downright frightening. [See Video Below]
In June, during a speech in which she thanked Planned Parenthood for their contributions, she expressing her belief that abortion is a constitutional right:
“Thank you for every woman, in every state, who has to miss work, drive hundreds of miles sometimes, endure cruel medically unnecessary waiting periods, walk past angry protesters, to exercise her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to safe and legal abortion.”
She was also interviewed a few days earlier by George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton Communications Director, who asked about whether or not the right to bear arms was an individual constitutional right, or if she believed it was linked to being in a militia. To which she replied:
“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice Scalia. There was no argument, until then, that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations.”
Noting that she did not actually answer the question, Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed the issue and Mrs. Clinton elaborated, saying:
“IF [pause: IF?] it is a constitutional right, then it, and every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations.”
Emphasis and commentary added to above quotes.
Now, the most obvious critique of these two statements is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights make no mention of Abortion whatsoever. Whereas, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution specifically states that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Of course, beyond the obvious, there is a more “nuanced” conflict as well. While the Presidential hopeful laments the regulations on the “constitutional right” of abortion, such as sparse availability, waiting periods, etc. When it comes to the ACTUAL Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, she claims that “IF it is a constitutional right… it, and every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations.”
So, am I the only one confused here? A dubious “constitutional right” to an abortion, crafted out of thin air by an activist Supreme Court, should not be subject to “reasonable regulations” like a waiting period before ending a human life. BUT… The ACTUAL RIGHT, to keep and bear arms, documented in the Bill of Rights is, and should be, subject to regulation like every other constitutional right? And just how do we regulate “freedom of speech,” “religious freedom,” “freedom of the press” or any others?
You know, I really, really, really try to be fair and give anyone willing to run for public office an honest chance to make their case. I’m not on the “Trump Train” and I’m not “Feeling the Bern or the Johnson,” but there is no way on earth that I can imagine or accept someone like Hillary Clinton as President of the United States. I find her, somewhat polished, pandering far more offensive than anything Donald J. Trump has ever said and more destructive than “The Bern” brand of “democratic socialism.” This is just one more, in a long list, of examples why America should now and forever be #NeverHillary.