Today in a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the upper chamber's most brilliant legal minds interrogated one of the most mendacious and immoral. I refer, of course, to Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) being questioned by Ted Cruz (R-TX).
The
Independent Sentinel (a member of the invaluable
Watcher's Council) provides us with the transcript and some needed perspective (
video here).
[Their Q&A] can only be described as a perfect example of a very legitimate and pertinent question, followed by a totally evasive and self-glorifying, political non-answer.
CRUZ: The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is 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? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”
Yes, Ma’am, you’re most all of the things you stated... but you didn’t answer the question...
One other very important point... [most] of the weapons you’ve listed in this legislation have been proven NOT to have been used at Sandy Hook. You are using the horrible deaths at Sandy Hook to promote a political ideology and playing on the heartstrings of Americans in the process. That’s despicable.
When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults -- rather than the law -- it is a tacit admission that her argument is a sham.
Tell me, Ms. Feinstein: which "military-style assault weapons" used at the time of America's founding were banned by the Framers?
Hat tip: BadBlue 24-7 News.
6 comments:
All I herd coming out of her piehole was "blah blah blah I am unqualified to hold the office I have held for 20 years. blah blah..."
What's amazing is that all the liberal supporters of this BS have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. They'll never live to see the the utter folly of third actions.
What's most despicable is the way they keep talking about 'dismembered bodies' in the debate on gun control after the killings in Connecticut.The poor families have had their children not only taken from them by a sick loon,but used as props for this disreputable hag's agenda.She seems to revel in using them.The incident happened in a state with strict controls,so they propose the same type of rules for the rest of the country.They won't work any better nation wide than they did in Connecticut.
I just got caught with my "Constitutional knickers" down around my ankles and got a royal intellectual spanking.
I shall now play my Feminist Superiority card and.... whine, cry, complain, make snarky comments... and still avoid answering a direct question.
Like her Dem/Lib/Prog cadre, she has "studied" the Constitution with the same intensity and intent as a dog "studies" a fire hydrant -- with the same predictable results.
If Dianne Feinstein knows so much about the Constitution, why does she want to strip away one of the amendments? Cruz had her on that one.
It annoyed me that Charles Krauthammer said Ted Cruz didn't help himself. I understand why he believes that but Cruz is right! I love hearing someone stick up for the Constitution.
I agree with Anonymous about their despicable conversation about bodies. They haven't a clue as to what they are talking about. They know nothing about guns. many of the guns on her list are not military weapons.
Unfortunately, the portion of the transcript shown her is not the most significant. The most significant and concerning bit was when Senator Feinstein said Senators don't have to be concerned whether a bill is constitutional because, as she said, her only duty in Congress is to pass laws, leaving it up to the Judiciary to decide (at a much later date) whether a given law is constitutional. Chilling.
Post a Comment