Skip to comments.Note to Dianne Feinstein: Yeah, You Do Need to be Lectured on the Constitution
Posted on 03/21/2013 5:21:30 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
In case you missed it, an interesting exchange took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz politely asked gun-control crazy Dianne Feinstein how she would feel about applying her minimalist view on the Second Amendment to other parts of the Bill of Rights.
Feinstein went into orbit. "I'm not a sixth grader," she huffed. Invoking her extensive Senate history of spitting on the Constitution, she made it clear that she didn't appreciate being reminded of the Constitutions restrictions on her legislative will.
Feinstein suggested that Congress should pass anti-gun legislation without considering the Constitution, in the expectation that the courts will sort it out. Notwithstanding the fact that Feinstein and every other senator had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
So here's where we are: In a few weeks, after Easter recess, Harry Reid will move to proceed to some gun control proposal, probably the Veterans Gun Ban (S. 54). He'll then use his privileged recognition to set up a whole lot of votes intended to get Democrats reelected in 2014.
Democrats will be given a shot at voting against the crazy Feinstein gun ban. But then Reid will do what he did on ObamaCare and play let's-make-a-deal for votes on other gun control.
Bribes and tradeoffs will be made. And votes will be scheduled with a view to making Republicans maximally vulnerable by making them vote against measures which biased polling shows are popular in their states. Republican senators need to join together as a caucus to oppose the "motion to proceed" to any gun control legislation.
Let the Democrats be the ones forced to bite the bullet and vote for a "motion to proceed" which is framed as a vote in support of the Feinstein gun ban.
Under regular order, 41 Republicans can block any gun control this way. Harry Reid can use a special procedure under the anti-gun rules changes to force a vote with 51 Democrats, but, if he does, Mitch McConnell gets to "stop the trains" by offering the first unamendable amendment a process which Reid cannot relish.
Dianne Feinstein IS my senator. :-(
Most unfortunately, lecturing her on the Constitution would most probably be an utter waste of time: she’s already got her alleged “mind” made up, and isn’t going to be confused by mere facts.
Look into my eye.
But she never answered his question.
Mine too. And even scarier than that is the fact that she's the smarter one of the two.
Yeah, I sent her a hundred or two emails one time, but I’m sure the originator name Heywood Jablomee went straight to the junk folder.
It is interesting to me that she lost this battle shortly after she lost control of herself, her emotions, and her logic during her AWB hearing recently. That hearing may have been her downfall.
I find that in confronting libs in general, it is not important to convince the lib. It is not important to try to convert them, and you probably won’t. What is important is what everyone else sees in the conversation.
What is crucially important is that you don’t lose control, that you don’t go over the top, that you don’t start slinging insults and extreme or unreal statements; Let the libs do that, and NOBODY will want to follow them, and the voice of reason will ring true to everyone who is watching.
This is a counter to The Rules For Radicals employed by the left, and it isolates them when they are allowed, or encouraged, to “go over the top”.
Let them lose it!
Like Reagan has been known to say in confronting libs, “There you go again”. At the time I heard him say it, to me it seemed way too mild, but in hindsight it cannot be countered by the left. It was a knockout. I really think there is something to this.
Because she couldn't.
Given that Barbara Boxer's intellect falls far short of that of the average ball-peen hammer I must agree. However, I must also point out how pathetically weak an argument Feinstein had/has visàvis the assault weapons ban. I have a stack of letters from her from 1994 wherein she and I corresponded. And while I am admittedly not be the best at debate I completely destroyed her every point. If the woman lacked the ability to defeat my argument(s), she clearly lacks the intellect to make a legitimate argument why congress should have the ability to strip law-abiding Americans of their right to keep and bear arms. And she's the smart one? lol!
Not only Lectured, but the Original Bill of Rights needs to be drilled into her mind, maybe put the Bill of Rights on IDIOT Cards for idiot Feinstein.
And Cruz has argued before the Supreme Court at least half a dozen times. Betting he’s a bit closer to the Constitution.
$h!t for barins Schumer is one of mine :-(
$h!t for brains Schumer is one of mine :-(
Meaning? Absolutely nothing. A resume of any significance does not rely solely on longevity in a position.
I walked in, I saw people shot. Ive looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. Ive seen the bullets that implode [sic; and so completely clueless].
Meaning? One suspects in the strongest terms that Mrs. Feinstein has real, actual, bona fide PTSD; and as such, has no business writing (or voting on) legislation on anything, much less firearms.
Look, there are other weapons. Im not a lawyer, but after 20 years Ive been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it.
Note the disconnect between the two thoughts? Apparently, the connection of the sentences made perfect sense to Mrs. Feinstein, and it is scary that such an addled human holds a seat the Senate of the United States, and votes.
I find that in confronting libs in general, it is not important to convince the lib. It is not important to try to convert them, and you probably wont. What is important is what everyone else sees in the conversation.
I'll try to bear that in mind, Wildbill22. Thanks, eh?
(Notso)Feinstein should be the poster child for strict term limits!!!
Ouch! You are one of the few who can complain as loudly as I do. Schumer is right up there with Feinstein and Boxer in his craziness. Funny though, the crazier they are the more the left loves them.
I think she means that because she once witnessed the immediate after effects of the carnage that can be generated by a deranged whack-job, she feels she is now in a position of such moral superiority that she is entitled to disregard the explicit instructions of the United States Constitution and read a new set of contrary meanings into that document.
Which is by the way the document to which she owes the job she's held for the last almost twenty years.
Yep taken out by the Texas Cruz missile. His father came and talked to the small Collin County Tea Party, he is from Cuba. I knew after hearing his dad the son was one heck of a good man just what the county needed. Cruz is one of those lawyers who can plant a verbal trap and close you in it before you had a chance to think. He can give hour long speeches that are perfect with no notes, an amazing intellect.
I agree in general, especially in print. But I'm not sure if a dispassionate appeal to logic and reason plays well in this age of out-of-context soundbite videos. Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Gingrich sound very good when debating, but someone like McLame, Romney, or Boehner fall flat and it's hard to hear their message with their deadpan, moderate sounding approach.
That is a very important distinction. You shouldn’t moderate your beliefs, or principles. In fact if you do that is blood in the water to libs. But they can’t handle them either, and it will also function to infuriate them.
Moderate the tone, stay unemotional, and the lib will appear out of control.
McLame, Romney, or Boehner fail because they make the mistake of moderating their beliefs. Then they just come across as weak kneed RINOs.
Schumer is simply the worst human being on the planet....and that is saying something. If you have never had the misfortune of being in the same space with him consider yourself fortunate.
He is such a total jerk.
I was in the same room with him onece and I had to keep my hands in my pockets, lest they end up around his throat squeezing the life out of him. I had to leave after 15 minutes of it. I was simply having an “out of body experience” of anger.
Schumer is right up there with Feinstein and Boxer in his craziness. Funny though, the crazier they are the more the left loves them.
That is why Schumer was the model for the character Carl Schaumberg in `Unintended Consequences.’ Schaumberg meets an untimely end (well, actually BOTH ends) in that novel...