To get this out of the way: This writer has no earthly clue what this actually means.
But it’s so jarring to see, it clearly means something.
If you’ve spent any time online or around state politics, you’ve surely heard about the grossly unconstitutional power and gun grab by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat.
In a series of moves over Thursday and Friday, Grisham basically gave herself the power to (attempt to) suspend the Constitutional rights of her citizens.
Namely, Grisham took some drastic steps towards disarming Americans, by arbitrarily declaring a “health emergency” so she can infringe on the Second Amendment.
“Today I issued a 30-day ban on the open & concealed carrying of guns in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,” Grisham wrote in a Friday social media post. “Gun violence is killing between 2 and 3 children every month in NM – every single one of these deaths is unconscionable and they must stop.”
Look, even if you don’t know anything about New Mexico or constitutional law, deep down in your bones, you would still know that there is something seriously wrong with an elected official deciding she can unilaterally supersede the Constitution of the United States.
Any sane-minded person can see that those “rights” that Americans are supposed to have guaranteed by the Constitution aren’t exactly “rights” if an elected official can wantonly determine their validity. Those aren’t rights, those are barely privileges.
[firefly_poll]
Apparently, it’s not just sane people seeing this tyranny for what it is. Some of the most vocal, crazed leftists out there are not fans of Grisham’s move — and it raises the question of “Why?”
Two of the most anti-Constitution gun grabbers in the nation, California Rep. Ted Lieu and anti-gun activist David Hogg, took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to denounce Grisham’s unconstitutional move with eerily similar language.
I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/kOhLMtaOl2
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) September 9, 2023
I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/6GfbOZLc7g
— David Hogg ? (@davidhogg111) September 9, 2023
“I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution,” Lieu posted to X. “No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
Hogg, quote-posting the same exact CNN article, wrote: “I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
If the weirdly similar language wasn’t a red flag, surely the fact that Hogg and Lieu are speaking out against this gun grab is.
Because a cynic might suggest that there’s a secret reason these aggressively anti-Constitution advocates (make no mistake, if Hogg and Lieu could take all your guns, they would) are suddenly touting the importance of constitutionalism.
This writer posits two theories:
- Democrats have some genuinely terrifying (for them) polling data regarding 2024 and beyond. They see that their far-left policies are forcefully turning the tide against their side, and are trying to mitigate that damage with lip service.
- Gov. Grisham is splintering off to spearhead an even more far-left wing of the Democrat party, and the old far-left stalwarts are calling her out on it (think of how many modern moderates have been vilified by the left as it kept moving further in that direction. Same idea.)
Both of those theories paint a grim picture for many Americans.
If a new far-far-left is rising to prominence, that’s a horrific thought for any Americans who want to avoid experiencing communism in their lifetimes.
But even if there isn’t a new left-wing rising, a desperate Democrat party could easily introduce some drastic anomalies — like nominating Michelle Obama to replace the incumbent president — to the equation.
That doesn’t bode well for anyone’s rights.
Just look at what’s happening in New Mexico.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
