Feinstein slaps down president of debate club

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

The WWE brand of politics. If only she'd bashed him with a folding chair!

I'm always underwhelmed at various videos in which someone supposedly gets "smacked down." Folding chairs might get my attention.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Not precisely. Cruz asked finally - after the lecture - if feinstein thought the proposal was constitutional and she answered "obviously". She then went on to discuss the fact that the committee is not the final arbiter on disputes about the constitutionality of laws but does best it can without being frozen into inaction, which is of course the direction Cruz would like to go. The pretense Cruz tried to wear is the same as most of the TH posters on the right on this issue, which is that the 2nd amendment is absolute and trying to limit ownership of weapons is a priori a violation of it. Even the conservative Heller ruling doesn't agree with that.

So tell me precisely what point you are trying to make, that you say the Heller decision doesn't agree with.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

There is a question of personal commitment to at least giving a damn about the limits of Congressional authority being defined at face value in the eminently readable Constitution. There is a question of integrity. She made it sound like the only limit on Congress declaring empire or setting up a state religion is if a court says no. She finds herself under no ethical obligation to play within the face value of the rules herself.

She didn't say that nor did she imply it.She said she "obviously" thinks the proposal before the committee is constitutional but noted that legislators are not the final arbiters of that, much as Cruz pretended he was. Her response was the essence of conservativism.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So tell me precisely what point you are trying to make, that you say the Heller decision doesn't agree with.

My point agrees with Heller - the 2nd amendment is not I absolute.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by Row6

She didn't say that nor did she imply it.She said she "obviously" thinks the proposal before the committee is constitutional but noted that legislators are not the final arbiters of that, much as Cruz pretended he was. Her response was the essence of conservativism.

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.

[wgbgator]

If a bill passes Congress and goes to the president's desk, for all intents and purposes they have judged it Constitutional. They are the first, but not final arbiter of Constitutionality.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

My point agrees with Heller - the 2nd amendment is not I absolute.

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

You must be trying to nuance some other leftist point.

[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.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If a bill passes Congress and goes to the president's desk, for all intents and purposes they have judged it Constitutional. They are the first, but not final arbiter of Constitutionality.

It's isn't passing

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

This is the only statement that actually supports your original proposition. Where is that in the Record of the Convention. I have those and would like to highlight it. I'd also like to know which recording said that, as some are more dependable than others at various parts of the Convention.

I suggest respectfully that you are being a bit pedantic.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's isn't passing

If a bill doesnt pass, then Constitutionality is moot.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If a bill passes Congress and goes to the president's desk, for all intents and purposes they have judged it Constitutional. They are the first, but not final arbiter of Constitutionality.

That is false, as a judgment need not be made by the Congress about the Constitutionality of legislation, that determination ultimately being left to the judiciary. But they should consider the issue, not only in the spirit of the Constitution but also as a practical matter regarding the efficient use of the people's time.

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'm always underwhelmed at various videos in which someone supposedly gets "smacked down."

Same here.

Folding chairs might get my attention.

I'd like to see some loser-leaves-town chain matches. Let them put their elective offices where their mouths are.

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.

There you go again jd, getting all level headed and reasonable. That's generally frowned on around here.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

That is false, as a judgment need not be made by the Congress about the Constitutionality of legislation, that determination ultimately being left to the judiciary. But they should consider the issue, not only in the spirit of the Constitution but also as a practical matter regarding the efficient use of the people's time.

Its a de facto judgement, but a valid one. If there is no forthcoming challenge after it is signed into law, then for all intents and purposes, it is constitutional. No de jure judgement is required. The restraint to not making laws that are expressly unconstitutional is already built into the system, because people are assumed capable of reason and foresight.

[neisgator]

Stick to creating failed global warming threads.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Its a de facto judgement, but a valid one. If there is no forthcoming challenge after it is signed into law, then for all intents and purposes, it is constitutional. No de jure judgement is required. The restraint to not making laws that are expressly unconstitutional is already built into the system, because people are assumed capable of reason and foresight.

Again, it is false that the passage of laws amounts to a de facto judgment of Constitutionality, as the Congress has no requirement to make such a judgment. The Congress could pass the Campbell's chicken noodle soup recipe as a bill, or the phone book. You can infer the existence of a judgment within a context of other facts, but you cannot deduce the existence of a judgment, i.e., it is not tautological or true by definition.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Again, it is false that the passage of laws amounts to a de facto judgment of Constitutionality, as the Congress has no requirement to make such a judgment. The Congress could pass the Campbell's chicken noodle soup recipe as a bill, or the phone book. You can infer the existence of a judgment within a context of other facts, but you cannot deduce the existence of a judgment, i.e., it is not tautological or true by definition.

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.

[g8orbill]

I find it interesting that the same people who are for abortion and the killing of the unborn are also for gun control-I wonder how many abortions are performed each year in America and how many people are killed by a gun. That said-it is interesting how many think any type of legislation to make abortion illegal is wrong and yet think that any type of legislation that either restricts or controls the ability to buy a gun is okay

[geauxgator1]

She had no idea what he was talking to her about, and didn't want to appear ignorant. It kind of reminded me of Hillary's rant not long ago about "what difference does it make", we have 4 dead people or something to that affect. Of course it matters, because there are dead people, and that's exactly why we are here. Unbelievable

[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.