Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris has often positioned herself as a champion of democracy, but most reasonable Americans view this claim with a healthy dose of skepticism. Anyone genuinely believing that Harris is the savior of constitutional order needs a reality check that could rival a cold splash of water on the face. Her muddled speeches are about as coherent as a toddler’s attempt to explain why they shouldn’t have their candy taken away. In short, she’s not exactly leading a rallying cry for the Constitution.
While some conservatives might be hesitant to support former President Donald Trump due to his brash style, the idea that Trump poses a greater threat to the Constitution than the current administration is more than a bit absurd. The never-Trump crowd, led by figures like Liz Cheney, seems to forget that much of what they claim about Trump borders on hyperbole. If anyone has a penchant for dramatics, it’s those on the Left, who engage in wild accusations that Trump is poised to execute a coup or otherwise undermine democracy. It’s a lot closer to Sci-Fi flick than truth.
Is Kamala The Bigger Threat To The Constitutional Order?
Vote. Don't vote. I don't care. Just stop telling me that Vice President Kamala Harris is going to save democracy… pic.twitter.com/Rn9j2G8Aq3— Rami. (@ThrilledBe) October 27, 2024
When it comes to real threats, the Democratic establishment has routinely weaponized its power against dissenters. The Left’s use of state apparatuses—notably against Trump, pro-life activists, and concerned parents—is unprecedented. There’s no shortage of examples, from the targeting of conservative voices to the extreme measures taken against those who dare to disagree with their agenda. It’s enough to make anyone take a step back and consider who’s truly a menace to constitutional liberties.
If Trump acted out, sure, it would be troublesome, but the fallout would likely stay within the confines of his presidency. In stark contrast, Harris and her party have enjoyed a consistent pattern of infringing upon constitutional structures for long-term gains. For instance, her musings about regulating speech suggest she sees the First Amendment more as a suggestion than a fundamental right. The idea that any of her proposed actions would ensure a freer America is laughable at best.
Then, of course, there’s her infamous remark about circumventing Congress to implement firearm seizure, which directly attacks the Second Amendment. The ever-ambitious Harris also supports the overhaul of legislative norms, endorsing significant changes that would enable Democrats to steamroll state-level protections and countenancing actions that might as well rewrite the state-federal dynamic altogether. Her misguided actions illuminate a clear desire to centralize power and remove safeguards that have stood the test of time.
The suggestion to pack the Supreme Court adds another level of desperation to her political maneuvers. It’s akin to watching a toddler throw a tantrum after not getting their way, further showing that when Harris is unhappy with the judicial branch, she’s more than willing to torch it and start anew. While the courts might be the last bastion of rational governance amidst the chaos, there’s little doubt about what would happen if Harris got her way. Trump may not be perfect, but at least he has shown a willingness to nominate judges with conservative values—something Harris would undoubtedly obstruct at every turn.
In conclusion, while the future may be uncertain under Trump, the clear and present danger lies with Harris and her backers who seem particularly intent on waging war against the very fabric of democracy. One thing is for sure: the mischaracterizations about Trump being the singular threat to the constitutional order look more and more like theatrical performances than substantive political assessments. Harris may call herself a defender of democracy, but when critiqued under the lens of genuine governance, her track record suggest she’s anything but.
