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 ...
And .. as far as I’m concerned, Ted Cruz has a much greater IQ than most of the people in Congress .. and he knows what he knows and he doesn’t get upset by anything they say.
And .. today I saw that McCain apologized for his snarky comments to Cruz. I suspect a lot of us sent McCain a scathing msg regarding his stinking attitude.
Cruz is just COOOOOOOL!! His speech at CPAC was so good I watched it twice.
And .. if anybody is interested, I don’t think anybody who has won the CPAC straw poll has ever won the election. But, since they have CPAC every year, I expect Cruz to climb up the ladder before 2016.
By "HEARING" OR "READING ABOUT," you think you know more than I do about something I actually experienced.
Bless your heart!
I don't believe McCain can rattle Cruz. LOL!
You are pathetic lonestar...
Because I understand you are clueless?
I think you are devolving into the lowest common insultinator lonestar. This is evident whenever one does not have a leg to stand on. Hope you don’t fall over and bump ‘yer little head.
Care to remember the poll numbers before, when you were hanging out there by yourself? Just sayin.
I though he was stilted and a little tame for my liking. The real go getter was Brent Bozel, go watch his speech a couple times.
Have you checked under your bed ?
arms meant cannons... they even let ship owners attack foreign powers on the high seas as privateers.
the left’s argument will then be, what about nuclear weapons, we should all have a nuclear bomb then?
who is our government, but the people. and if they have a nuclear bomb and turn against us, then why shouldn’t we be able to have just the same.
oh the thought of that will make the left scream.
t
Thanks for the compliment but I wasn't the only perceptive person to support Cruz early on. I was never by myself. There were many of us from almost day one.
Again, it was the debate that helped Cruz most...amd Dewhurst hurt himself...big time.
BTW, early poll numbers reflected name recognition. Dewhurst is a popular Lt. Gov.
I know a lot more about Texas politics and politicians than Sarah Palin knows...or should care to know! Just sayin'.
But, they were giving two different speeches about two different subjects.
Brent Bozell was just being himself and doing and saying what he always does and says. I enjoyed his speech too, but I follow his website so most of what he was saying was not new to me.
However, Senator Cruz was TEACHING the Constitution, and making people aware that our founding documents are not stupid, silly or unknowable. He was quiet about it (during most of his speech) .. because when you talk softer, it causes people to be quieter so they can hear the speech. A lot of people don’t know he graduated from Harvard, and he was the former Solicitor General of Texas. A Solicitor General is the chief lawyer for the state. The good ones know their Constitution.
It might serve you well if you would go to the C-SPAN or CPAC websites and listen to what Senator Cruz was saying.
where were these people in November?
“but his questions are not answered in such black-and-white terms as some would like”
Actually, the questions are answered in very simple terms .. that’s what the statists, liberals and others don’t like about it. They think emotionally, while the Constitution speaks logically.
I have all the keynotes downloaded to my Hard Drive.
Hey...Don’t bother posting to me again until you turn at least 13.
You found that boogyman under your bed.
Good for you.
Now, check the closet...
where were these people in November?
******
No doubt some were less than enthusiastic about Republican candidates or the GOP in general which talks a good game but reverts back to status quo one day after the election.
But how do we win that battle? We've got to know more than happy little catch-phrases or "party lines" as the Left does.
The way to “preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution is to not only know the text, but understand the original understanding and intent when there is a textual controversy.
When you say, "the questions are answered in very simple terms" you are doing the same thing as the Left - using your own values and morality to interpret the law (in this case the Constitution). This is the essence of judicial activism. We HAVE to do MUCH better than that.
Cruz didn't say, “Hey Feinstein, the Constitution obviously supports people owning guns." That's obvious - don't need to research that. But he was talking in very simplistic terms about ALL kinds of weaponry. That's a different animal, but that is the issue. What did the Framers intend and what was in the scope of their intent regarding "bearing arms." It is a legitimate question and need to be answered.
However, I don't think it's any of the federal government's business in the first place. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere where the Constitution gives the federal government the power to question the "arms" of the people. I think that's a states' issue. The only thing I see is the federal government cannot take away your right to bear arms. The only exception might be if someone was a threat to national security by maintaining some kind of personal army or possibly a suitcase nuke or something.
The questions are really not answered in such simple terms, but they are answerable and should be, not with the lies and deception of the Left but with the truth and the right, "[A]s God gives us to see the right."
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.