Senator Morrison (D-District 29) just can’t seem to understand/uphold her oath of office.
“I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of the office here) to the best of my ability.”
That’s pretty straight forward, isn’t it? Abide by the constitution and all is good. Well, over the past week, Senator Morrison has shown that she is unfit to serve, as she is constantly breaking her oath. Let’s start with example #1, which occurred at a town hall event in Deerfield.
Senator Morrison stated that since people don’t want to register their firearms and pay a fine (fee), that “maybe we should just have confiscation”. If she were to introduce a confiscation bill, what would the violate?
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, there’s two rights violated from a gun confiscation, and she makes it clear she is for “gun control” and also that she never has (and never will) vote for anything that strengthens or supports the 2nd amendment. Heck, it’s even on her website!
It’s even part of the Illinois Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Moving on, as we have all seen plenty of what was said by her last week. It now seems though that Senator Morrison wishes to add another right she violated to to the above: the first Amendment, which you will see.
I can understand why a politicians would block, especially if people are trolling them and not discussing their policies and their actions. However, one twitter user was blocked because they tagged Senator Morrison over what she said in Deerfield:
This post seemed to have resulted in this happening:
The user stated that they posted a meme of her in a Nazi uniform (photoshopped) due to the comparison of her statement and what the tyrants of the 20th century did (disarmed their political opponents and made them their victims), so that also could have resulted in a block. Meme is here:
Whichever one did it (the post or the meme), it was because of her policies and her own spoke remarks and proposed bills, therefor it was a legitimate criticism of her legislative stances. Word got out about the social media block (and other users came forward as well), which led her to make a statement today:
175 comments on it so far (wow). But notice how it’s worded? “We will remove posts WE deem abusive, inflammatory…….”. So, let’s look at the 1st amendment and see if elected officials get to censor people based on what THEY deem “abusive and inflammatory”:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be asufficient defense. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
The ACLU even has taken elected officials to court over this (and won):
One of the core purposes of the First Amendment is to allow people, regardless of their views, to hold the government accountable through expression. So, if your elected representative has an official Facebook page where she invites comments, can she block you from commenting because you criticize her work?
According to a federal appeals court, the answer is a resounding no.
On Monday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the interactive portion of a public official’s Facebook page is a “public forum,” so an official cannot block people from it because of the opinions they hold.