Feinstein slaps down president of debate club

[Row6]

Boy wonder thinks the constitution is cut, dried, and not up for debate.

[CHFG8R]

And yet her response was equally if not more pathetic, an emotionally charged and fact absent diatribe that completely ignores the question and also ignores the fact that the proposed legislation could not nor would have prevented Sandy Hook.

But hey, if it makes you feel good. . . .

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Row6

Boy wonder thinks the constitution is cut, dried, and not up for debate.

I hear a woman going off on a rant about her power and license to do whatever she wants, that she is bigger than anything as paltry as the words in the Constitution. I hear hubris. She disgusts me.

[108]

she could just pose the same question back to him in regards to how the Constitution originally viewed black people and slavery

its a living document, and the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that certainly could be construed in multiple ways

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by 108

she could just pose the same question back to him in regards to how the Constitution originally viewed black people and slavery

its a living document, and the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that certainly could be construed in multiple ways

She is to busy ranting about her power...

Amend the constitution and get enough states on board to do so and so be it.

[gatorman_07732]

She sounds like someone that can't engage in debate over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution so she went off half cocked.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

And yet her response was equally if not more pathetic, an emotionally charged and fact absent diatribe that completely ignores the question and also ignores the fact that the proposed legislation could not nor would have prevented Sandy Hook.

But hey, if it makes you feel good. . . .

When you cannot compete on the facts appeal to emotion, attack the messenger, and act offended. Dem rule #1

[RayGator]

Reminded me of Hillary not able to give an answer to the committee about the tragedy in Libya. Just yell louder, sound outraged, sound indignant. And the liberal media will love it and show it over and over again. Nothing really new here.

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

She is to busy ranting about her power...

Amend the constitution and get enough states on board to do so and so be it.

Amend? Why bother?

It is easier to water it down and rewrite it on the fly... The Supremes have been doing it for years. Tax legislation originating senate, public takings for tax revenue...They are destroying the foundation little by little so that the document means nothing or anything they want it to mean. Politicians do this by nature. They seek power. Justices do it by weakness and political debts. Still amazed how the Supremes sat and let the president talk to them like they were children that night. Co-equal? LOL. Most are puppets.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by 108

she could just pose the same question back to him in regards to how the Constitution originally viewed black people and slavery

its a living document, and the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that certainly could be construed in multiple ways

And she would have looked like an even bigger arrogant jackass, since he could have said "to change that, we amended the constitution. In 20 years, you never have bothered to try to amend it repealing the 2nd. Did you not understand how?"

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by RayGator

Reminded me of Hillary not able to give an answer to the committee about the tragedy in Libya. Just yell louder, sound outraged, sound indignant. And the liberal media will love it and show it over and over again. Nothing really new here.

Pretty good analogy Ray, she was obviously not ready to counter him logically. That says something about her if she is going to put a Bill forward like that and be unprepared to answer basic questions.

[mocgator]

http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/14/a...medium=twitter

If Ted Cruz keeps this up in the Senate, Democrats might try to impose gun control on his Cruz missile strikes. Earlier today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, Ted Cruz directly challenges Dianne Feinstein to answer how her gun bans are constitutional if the same language protecting the right to bear arms (“the right of the people”) is used for the First and Fourth Amendments, which presumably, nobody would try to limit in the same way. Of course, she had no answer, except to act like a pugnacious school child.

It’s probably not a good idea for Senator Feinstein to argue with the man who represented the states in the Heller case on the ramifications of the decision. Yet, this is someone who believes that its the job of a senator to legislate, irrespective of the constitutionality of the law.

Indeed it is a new day in the Senate with Ted Cruz. And there are an awful lot of Democrats that are not happy with the paradigm shift.

[rivergator]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) battered Democrats with questions about whether they would support restrictions on the First or Fourth Amendments he claimed were similar to those an assault weapons ban would impose on the Second:

I pose to the senator from California [Sen. Diane Feinstein], would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for congress to specify that the first amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

But Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) obliterated his argument by noting the analogous actual restrictions on the actual First Amendment:

In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? Yeah. It’s constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional. Similarly, you can’t falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, we have libel laws. Every one of these is an impingement on the sacred First Amendment, upheld as constitutional. There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn’t add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent.

.

link

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by 108

she could just pose the same question back to him in regards to how the Constitution originally viewed black people and slavery

its a living document, and the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that certainly could be construed in multiple ways

The Constitution does not mention slavery.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The Constitution does not mention slavery.

It certainly does tacitly. Various protections of "Property" and the infamous "three fifths of all other persons." Especially when you take that clause in context where it distinguishes "free persons" from indentured servants, indians and those other persons (i.e. black slaves).

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The Constitution does not mention slavery.

What was it talking about here? Which persons were being imported?

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[wgbgator]

But they didnt say "slaves" guys.

[Itssaul]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

But they didnt say "slaves" guys.

Always the optimist wgb

[g8rjd]

Maybe it's just me, but I see Cruz's question as interesting, but really doesn't withstand much scrutiny. We can debate our personal view of the constitution (and clearly Sen. Cruz views the similarity of language as a basis for similarity of construction, which is a legitimate argument, but not one that the Supreme Court has followed), but when the Supreme Court has construed an amendment differently than Sen. Cruz, it is within Congress's authority to operate within that construction. I think Sen. Feinstein made that point, but was pretty theatrical in doing so.

Laws and sausuges... Just my $.02.

[gatorjd95]

Constitutional issues are inherently nuanced. However, it is the approach from the left and the right that is telling. In this instance, Feinstein (Dems) views the 2nd Amendment through the prism of what guns gov't allows people to have. Cruz (Reps) views the 2nd Amendment as "a right of the people" that may or may not have limitations, similar to 1st and 4th Amendments.

Side note - these Dem senators (and posters here) need to research that "yelling fire in theater" "ruling" that is used as a convenient prop/dodge. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html