Feinstein slaps down president of debate club

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hmm. It appears to me we are more or less in agreement over some basic assumptions, and arguing over esoteric matters. Which is fun and all, but the weekend calls.

I think it is legitimately the case that Constitutionality in any meaningful sense is not really considered by the Congress on a number of occassions. Many times, as now, there is an emotional impetus to enact legislation in response to a stimuli rather than a sober and considered judgment about what is wise. In fact I would argue that this is the primary justification for the SCOTUS and their power to nullify legislation: that which is popular is not necessarily wise.

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Funny how interpretations of the same event very so widely. I thought Feinstein came across as the loser in this one. She lost her cool, which is, in ANY debate, a loss.

I've noticed that this is a common factor in "smack down" threads. The participant who loses his/her cool first, or shouts the loudest, usually gets credit for a smack down from supporters. The substance doesn't seem to matter so much.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Funny how interpretations of the same event very so widely. I thought Feinstein came across as the loser in this one. She lost her cool, which is, in ANY debate, a loss.

Yeah Row showed a complete meltdown and tried to spin it as a smack down. She absolutely no logic or education of the constitution and instead appealed to her masses in emotional distress. I think it's time for her to hang it up and retire or these young guys are going to eat her up.

[MastaG8r]

It's always entertaining when the OP does one of these "Neener neener neeeeener, bwaaahahaha, BOO-ya" threads or posts where he thinks one of his Leftist heroes has dunked in the opposition's face...

and then when the usual lineup of educated posters on the Right proceed to totally debunk the dunk....

he pivots to, "Reasonable Open-Minded Guy Just Having a Friendly Conversation and Getting Educated" mode.

Sure, the Constitution as originally written had some stuff that at least indirectly referred to or protected the institution of slavery. But it was all rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

So if Dianne Fine-stine (I like to pronounce her name the way Col. Jessup said "Wienburg") wants to change the Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms anymore, then let her propose an Amendment.

In the meantime...

As Senator Cruz said after her emotional, blustering, non-responsive rant: "Nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion. And yet at the same time I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked. Which is, in her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not?"

In response to which she finally had to concede: "The answer is obvious. No."

So there you have it. Neener neener neeeeener. Bwaaahahaha. Boo-ya.

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by Row6

If Cruz was correct in the premise of his pointless grandstanding people would advocate for weapons equal to the military, and you among them since you think we have a right to insurrection. The 2nd amendment is not absolute, a fact that Feinstein had to school Cruz on.

The issue that neither Feinstein or Cruz addressed in that exchange is the most important....the main reason for the second amendment is to provide the opportunity and capability of the people to ARM & DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT...

so to answer Sen. Feinstein's question....yes, I believe my neighbor should be allowed to own a bazooka or other weapons available to the military... after all, that is whom against which we are preparing to fight

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

The issue that neither Feinstein or Cruz addressed in that exchange is the most important....the main reason for the second amendment is to provide the opportunity and capability of the people to ARM & DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT...

so to answer Sen. Feinstein's question....yes, I believe my neighbor should be allowed to own a bazooka or other weapons available to the military... after all, that is whom against which we are preparing to fight

I disagree that civilians ought to have unencumbered access bazookas and heavy weapons.

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I disagree that civilians ought to have unencumbered access bazookas and heavy weapons.

do you agree the primary intent of the second amendment was to allow the citizenry to protect themselves against their own govt?

[secgator]

Would be nice to have Pelosi, the Smart One....to be placed in the same circumstances. The way she bumbles and stumbles and with a lot of "uh's and umm's" and numerous dead air pauses when she is simply trying to make a statement to the press under normal circumstances--she would need to have a translator present when having some hardball pressure put on her to be understood whatsoever.

Feinstein...Pelosi...Barbara Boxer---all these cerebral mutants have NO business being in an elected position of power. Feinstein showed it in this exchange, while Pelosi---well, there simply aren't words to describe her ineptness. "Mental deficiency" is about as accurate a term as one can use for the former SOH.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

do you agree the primary intent of the second amendment was to allow the citizenry to protect themselves against their own govt?

Not to the extent of the wholesale distribution of heavy armament.

[Wormwood56]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Not to the extent of the wholesale distribution of heavy armament.

The problem is that the issue is so ill-defined. What exactly constitutes an "assault weapon?"

In 2012, we presume that an assault weapon is a military-styled weapon that has the capability of firing a semi-automatic succession of rounds downrange. Full automatic weapons are illegal.

In the late 18th century, up until the early 19th century, the so-called "assault weapon" of the day, which was used by soldiers under the control of the government, were the Brown Bess, a smooth-bore, muzzle-loaded, single-shot flintlock musket. The handgun had the same design as the musket.

The government did not prohibit the citizenry of owning these weapons because the 2d Amendment forbade them to do so. What so many Leftists fail to understand is that the intent of the Constitution is NOT to tell the citizens what they can or cannot do. The intent of the Constitution is to tell the GOVERNMENT what THEY can or cannot do.

Cruz forgot more about constitutional law than Feinstein knows. As a Princeton undergrad, as well as a Harvard law degree, Cruz has a bit more education than Feinstin, who has nothing more than a history degree from Stanford. He knows the laws.

And it would have been child's play to eviscerate Feinstein's childish rant. She seems to think that seniority in the Senate somehow confers wisdom and superior s of world affairs. If that was the case, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond must have been intellectual giants. None of them were.

Feinstein, in spite of her Stanford degree, is not that bright and would get cut to pieces by that so-called "debate champ." Cruz showed remarkable restraint.

[Minister_of_Information]

But what the government can or can't do is tell the people what to do.

[Itssaul]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

But what the government can or can't do is tell the people what to do.

Yes it can???

[g8orbill]

Originally Posted by Itssaul

Yes it can???

http://videos2view.net/smackdown.htm

amazing isn't it

[Row6]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

I don't know that you're being fair to Sen. Cruz's position, Row. As I expessed in post 24, Cruz seems to be suggesting that if Congress believes a proposal is unconstitutional (or in this matter, he believes a proposal is unconstitutional) they (or he) should vote against it. That's not to say that he thinks Congress is the FINAL arbiter of that. Honestly, it is a legitimate question on both their parts. What is the roll of Congress and the President in determining constitutionality. Should Congress pass a law that it thinks is unconstitutional or would be found unconstitutional? Should the President veto a law he agrees with because he believes it's unconstitutional? Or, since the judiciary's job is to say "what the law is," under the principle of judicial review, should that question be left to the Court, as they are at the end of the process and the ultimate determiner of constitutionality. There is a very legitimate debate on the question of Article I and Article II in determining constitutionality. And you don't need to play parties for that. It's not hard to think of a hypothetical where the parties would be on the other side.

If Cruz was serious about the constitutionality of the proposal before the committee he should have spoken directly to what about the proposal doesn't pass heller or any other precedents he wishes to name. A general discussion of the bill of rights is grandstanding and especially when he only quotes the second phrase of the two phrase amendment. He wasn't trying to begin serious debate he was playing to his tea party constituency. As Feinstein responded, "obviously" she thinks the proposal is constitutional and if Cruz disagrees, get out the chapter and verse, not the slogans.

[MichiGator2002]

It seem to me that, as the burden would be on the state to prove they satisfy the scrutiny required under Heller, it should be up to proponents of legislation to explain how and why they think their legislation would hold up to review. Give the legislators the same roles they would have were they to actually be in court.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

If Cruz was serious about the constitutionality of the proposal before the committee he should have spoken directly to what about the proposal doesn't pass heller or any other precedents he wishes to name. A general discussion of the bill of rights is grandstanding and especially when he only quotes the second phrase of the two phrase amendment. He wasn't trying to begin serious debate he was playing to his tea party constituency. As Feinstein responded, "obviously" she thinks the proposal is constitutional and if Cruz disagrees, get out the chapter and verse, not the slogans.

I have news for you, Cruz can absolutely school Feinstein on the constitution. She was obviously intimidated by the young chap that she went off half cocked like she did.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorjd95

Row, I watched the clip earlier in the day, so I don't remember every word, but I don't recall Cruz making the argument that the 2Am was absolute, or even saying the word "absolute." As others have pointed out, one of Cruz's points was that Congress should consider the constitutionality of laws being considered. His analogy to 1Am and 4Am was for the purpose of demonstrating that similar language in those amendments are treated differently than Finestein and the left address 2Am issues - that is, the left gives more strength to "the right of the people" when addressing the right to assemble, petition gov't, and being free from unreasonable searches and seizures. He does not say that any of these rights are absolute, but Congress shouldn't prioritize between the rights as if some are more or less important. Finestein clearly did not discern the "nuance" of the question. Let's face it, if someone cries out "I need a constitutional scholar quick" - no one will think to call Finestein. On the other hand, Cruz is actually a very accomplished and recognized constitutional scholar. The reference to him as president of the debate club is pretty pathetic - not many debate club presidents successfully argue cases before the Supreme Court and get elected as Senator of the most populus state in America.

BTW, every Congressman (and the Pres) takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. So, yes, Congress should pass only laws that it determines are consitutional. If they get it wrong, then USSC will make amends. This is why I was quite disappointed when Congress and Bush passed the campaign finance law - they all knew that parts of its would be found unconstitutional, but they passed it for the PR value. Imagine that, politicians passing the buck. In Florida, the legislature does the same thing by routing contentious issues to the Amendment process so that they don't have to go on the record.

If Cruz wants to act as a constitutional scholar he should discuss the specific portions of the proposal before the committee which he thinks don't pass Heller or any other precedent he wants to pull out. On the other hand, the president of the debate club addresses the issue by quoting the 1/2 of the 2nd amendment that he likes - and which everyone in the room already knows - and in a soothing but mock-serious tone implies that those he is addressing are ignorant of the founding document upon which they are empowered to pass legislation. No, he's not acting as a serious constitutional scholar - and BTW, I'm an acquaintance of someone who clerked for a SC justice and he is a very serious and fair guy - he's acting like the president of the debate club.

As to the role the legislators should take when considering the constitutionality of bills before them, it is my opinion - and I have not thought of this at all until now - that that is the last thing they should think of, though they should at that time. As elected constitutional officers they have extraordinary powers which the courts have historically remained mindful of have tried to not overturn without a damn good reason. Second guessing the courts is a form of prior restraint and a misunderstanding of their appropriate role. So, even Cruz had something of substance to say beyond the mealy-mouthed HS he burped out in that meeting, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

The right to possess firearms for personal self-defense is absolute. Heller.

You must be trying to nuance some other leftist point.

No, it is not absolute. What firearms are allowed is the issue and is what much of the proposal before the senate is about.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I think it is legitimately the case that Constitutionality in any meaningful sense is not really considered by the Congress on a number of occassions. Many times, as now, there is an emotional impetus to enact legislation in response to a stimuli rather than a sober and considered judgment about what is wise. In fact I would argue that this is the primary justification for the SCOTUS and their power to nullify legislation: that which is popular is not necessarily wise.

I agree. The Congress should act as the elected constitutional officers, not as the judiciary. Much time can be saved if they are somewhat mindful of the constitutionality of a bill but that's not their primary job.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

It's always entertaining when the OP does one of these "Neener neener neeeeener, bwaaahahaha, BOO-ya" threads or posts where he thinks one of his Leftist heroes has dunked in the opposition's face...

and then when the usual lineup of educated posters on the Right proceed to totally debunk the dunk....

he pivots to, "Reasonable Open-Minded Guy Just Having a Friendly Conversation and Getting Educated" mode.

Sure, the Constitution as originally written had some stuff that at least indirectly referred to or protected the institution of slavery. But it was all rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

So if Dianne Fine-stine (I like to pronounce her name the way Col. Jessup said "Wienburg") wants to change the Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms anymore, then let her propose an Amendment.

In the meantime...

As Senator Cruz said after her emotional, blustering, non-responsive rant: "Nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion. And yet at the same time I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked. Which is, in her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not?"

In response to which she finally had to concede: "The answer is obvious. No."

So there you have it. Neener neener neeeeener. Bwaaahahaha. Boo-ya.

Are you high?