Note to Dianne Feinstein: Yeah, You Do Need to be Lectured on the Constitution

GOA ^ | Mar. 21, 2013 | GOA staff

[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 Constitution’s 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.

[Steely Tom]

Meaning? Absolutely nothing

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.

[pwatson]

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.

[uncommonsense]

"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. "

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.

[Wildbill22]

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.

[Wildbill22]

McLame, Romney, or Boehner fail because they make the mistake of moderating their beliefs. Then they just come across as weak kneed RINOs.

[yoe]

"I'm not a sixth grader," ...hummmm...this is typical of the arrogant attitude of the elitist senators who have been in office as long as this woman has...you will have noticed I am sure, McCain's attitude about the Jr. Senator Rand Paul when his remarks covered the use of our Constitution or the lack there of....Mr. Graham also took umbrage of the very correct younger Senators showing them, the Old Bulls up. A Pox on all who do not follow the United States Constitution....Ms. Feinstein's lack thereof noted...

[Ouderkirk]

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.

[Peet]

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...