SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) 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?
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, 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'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.
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.
Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you use the word prohibit — it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka?
Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place then you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dianne Feinstein to CNN's Wolf Blitzer
FEINSTEIN: I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it. And, you know, when you've come from where I've come from and what you've seen, and when you found a dead body and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons, and they become more sophisticated, and more the product of a battlefield, and you've got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy.
When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers, people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And so it's based on my experience. And I think -- well, the bottom line is, we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10-8. The president has issued a very strong statement in support of it.
. . . BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?
FEINSTEIN: No, I needed to cool down.
BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?
FEINSTEIN: I've cooled down.
BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?
FEINSTEIN: Yes. Yes. Well, I did say, look, I'm sorry. But, you know, this is one thing that I feel very passionately about. And I appreciate the lecture, but -- that's all I'm going to say.
Indeed, it bears emphasis that amici States likewise have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like…But all 31 amici States agree that striking down the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on all operative firearms would pose no threat to these reasonable regulations.
~ Excerpt of an Amicus Brief filed by Ted Cruz in the Supreme Court Case Columbia vs. Heller
Did they teach Ted Cruz to read what the Supreme Court said, especially when the landmark — the landmark decision — regarding Second Amendment rights over 200 years was written in 2008?" Scarborough said, referring to the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.
"I'm just wondering, why would he use his seat on the Judiciary Committee — if he went to Harvard — to put forward a willfully ignorant statement about this bill violating the Second Amendment? Because it does not. And Ted Cruz knows it does not.
"Who is he playing for? Is he playing for people who can't read? For illiterates? I can't understand."
~ Joe Scarborough via Business Insider
I used to think women just should not be able to vote. Now I think at least liberal women should not be able to hold office. Every time you try to have a discussion with them, they become hysterical, they cry, and they want to show pictures of dead children. As if our position is 'we don’t mind a few dead children.' Our position is ‘concealed carry’ would stop these slaughters.
~ Ann Coulter on Fox News
Not only is Ted Cruz an extremist, he's also overbearing, arrogant, and condescending. I can only imagine how Dianne Feinstein felt. How dare he - he just got there! How dare he show up and commence to lecture her on the Constitution. So she just ground him back into his place with the heel of her high-heel pump, and good for her.
~ Cynthia Tucker on Hardball
The logical question for Ted Cruz is can you own a grenade launcher? How about a tank? Where is the restriction that he'd be comfortable with? Or are there no restrictions? I have no idea.
~ Sam Stein of Huffington Post on Hardball
Let the record show that you can be a United States Senator for 21 years, you can be 79-years-old, you can be the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and widely respected veteran public servants in your nation, but if you are female while all of other those things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down.
~ Rachel Maddow on MSNBC
No comments:
Post a Comment