Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Even if Senator Mitch McConnell’s office had announced from the very beginning that he was suffering from a serious medical condition that left him unconscious, the constitutional problem would remain the same: there is no mechanism to remove or replace an incapacitated senator who cannot voluntarily resign. That exposes...

35,604 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

BREAKING: Kentucky Politicians Want to Know If Mitch McConnell is 'Dead’ Multiple Kentucky politicians demand that Mitch McConnell’s office provide convincing proof that the senator is still alive. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear says he received multiple calls suggesting McConnell may have died while he was hospitalized. Speaking with Katie Couric, Beshear said two separate calls from government agencies raised alarms and he sought reassurance about McConnell's condition. "I got two calls from agencies suggesting that Sen. McConnell had passed away," Beshear said. Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie has also questioned McConnell’s actual state of health. McConnell, 84, has been hospitalized or in a rehabilitation center for over a month. In his July 12 statement, his office reassured Americans the senator was working hard for Kentuckians, but was not yet able to return to the senate floor. “My doctors have confirmed that I didn’t break any bones or suffer a concussion. I didn’t have a heart attack or a stroke. I don’t have any tumors or hemorrhages. But I was briefly unconscious and was taken to the hospital. While receiving excellent care over the past several weeks, I’ve also had to deal with a mild case of pneumonia." The McConnell office also released a photo that was widely scrutinized on social media. Many Americans have demanded more conclusive evidence that he is able to serve, such as a live interview or video statement.

Benny Johnson

367,351 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr