of course; E$tabli$hment shall "disagree"
Posted on 03/17/2013 7:28:53 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Texas Senator Ted Cruz's question to California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein on the Second Amendment in a March 14 hearing forced MSNBC hosts into conniptions,
At the heart of the congressional debate are the questions: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the federal government from passing laws related to firearms, leaving the role exclusively to the states? Or does the Second Amendment grant Congress the authority to pass laws banning guns whenever it believes it appropriate?
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The term, “the right of the people,” when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of art. That same phrase, “the right of the people,” is found in the First Amendment: “the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.” It's also found in the Fourth Amendment, “the right of the people to free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” And the question I would pose to the senior Senator from California [Feinstein] 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 the 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 First Amendment?
The Harvard Law School-educated Cruz's question sent MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough into an on-air meltdown, where Scarborough essentially argued that it doesn't matter what the Second Amendment says.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Yes I remember the CNBC study showing Congress members making “market crushing” investment returns.
Well, he is a white Hispanic. s/
The communist Progressives certainly do not care what any part of the Constitution says. Their aim is to destroy it.
Another sad commentary on California.
She ran 3 points ahead of Caliph Baraq in 2012.
Scarborough crossed over from his first days at MSNBC. Nothing new here. The first time I watched he had just started there and took advantage of his new soapbox to attack FoxNews and conservatives. Never turned his show on again.
Martha Stewart should take lessons from DiFi.
We may have some fun out of this yet.
Some FReepers have surmised that the Dems no longer even consider Republicans a threat, and are beginning the inevitable internal war, like Stalin’s purges.
It's an interesting, worthwhile, and relevant discussion - one that sooner or later may be headed for SCOTUS, where focused research into original textual meaning, understanding, and intent has (and should) take place. (That is not to say the same should not take place in the legislature or the executive branch, but unfortunately, it has historically been left to the judicial branch to do this.)
You never know what SCOTUS is going to do especially when populated, as it seemly always has been, by those willing to ignore or change the Constitution from the bench so as to make the "supreme Law of the Land" (the Constitution itself - Article VI, paragraph 2) fit their own personal set of values and morals.
Gun ownership is, in whatever the scope of the original meaning of "bearing arms" is, clearly our right. You may have a problem with your personal army, however, becasue this power is reserved for Congress in Article I, Section 8 and forbidden for states in Section 10, Paragraph 3 in the Constitution ("No state shall...keep Troops...").
The difference between a Conservative and a liberal is that Conservatives believe in the Rule of Law vrs the liberal’s Cult of Personality. From your post I’ll have to put you down on the side of the cultists....
Article II is NOT an “obscure exclusionary rule.” Observe Obama and you’ll see the very reason for the Founders wanting only Natural Born Citizens as the Chief Executive.
You are a fool. Your Hobson’s choice is unrealistic. A real Conservative that does not meet the standards of Article would not run.....Cruz will NEVER be so foolish as to cross that line despite Cultists like you urging him on.....
“Scab man?” KMA
AND we don't need their permission to reverse the infringements and hold the perpetrators accountable!!!
You are so right.
Feinstein is certainly a political opportunist, and her lust for power is coupled to her penchant for corruption.
A throughly disgusting individual.
I don’t worship anyone but the Lord God and Jesus Christ. Get over yourself. You, on the other hand.. obviously cannot believe Senator Cruz when he says that Sarah was instrumental in his getting elected. You know sometimes.. ya’ can’t fix stupid!!!!!!!!!! (My husband just said that, but he didn’t tell me to post it, but it just fits so well).
How original! LOL!
I voted for Cruz. Twice. (In the primary & in the general. I'm not a Dem) Sarah Palin had ZERO to do with it!
The debate had a lot to do with Cruz winning. Dewhurst was horrible in the debate.
Yes it is not original and completely applies to you my FRiend. You are in complete and total denial with regard to the stated FACT that Senator Cruz and many many others acknowledge the assistance of Sarah Palin being INSTRUMENTAL in helping him to succeed in his election!! What part of that do you not understand???? Your personal support is appreciated, but I doubt that your support put him over the top. Get it??? If you don’t.. go back to the non original reply... rinse and repeat!!!
” - - - You have to be on offense to score points. - - - “
Obvious to all but the GOP Elite.
That is not, and never was a donkey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.