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 ...
No, I don’t think lonestar has his “panties in a bunch”.
His point, correct me if I’m wrong lonestar, is that Cruz had the support of he and other Conservatives before Sarah’s endorsement.
Sarah took Cruz from the end of the line, to the forefront. She and his supporters took him to win.
It was his 1st supporters AND Sarah that took him over the finish line.
It’s called teamwork. Cruz’s win should be a lesson to ALL of us. Sarah could not have done it on her own and neither could his supporters.
Together, totally different story......outcome.
An author I've read has said that is the problem with conservatism - it's like being in a castle while the left is outside chipping away at the walls. Sooner or later they will get in. Part of the problem is that Republicans allow themselves to be shamed into being passive.
Good! It's well overdue that someone took that witch down a few notches.
I never was or never will be a Perry supporter. He is a Texan version of Romeny. He lost all credibility with his, “Eeeeoooooooppppsss” comment during the debates and he was left with egg on his face.
And a mind....
“No, I dont think lonestar has his panties in a bunch.
I do.
I agree.
It’s still a free country for now....have at it while you can.
I repeat, the debate between Dewhurst and Cruz was the game changer.
“.....the NBC scab pickers jump....”
Are you talking about people, like Sen. Cruz, that insist that the letter and intent of the Constitution be followed?????
Your scurrilious post outs you as a “low information” voter or as an agenda driven troll......Which is it, there are no other possibilities.......
No, I think I have as much right to voice an opinion as you or the next person.
Scab picker !
And now perhaps you’re getting the clue as to why little barry bastard boy commie is building up a domestic army to protect the treasonous bastards in government!
I got that clue a long time ago. I can’t remember when I read it, but I’m sure it was here on FR, that they expect the “uprising” to occur this summer.
Something to do with rising gas prices, and I think people not being able to buy food.
Wish I book marked it (thwap upside my head).
You may want to direct that toward the ranting one. The country is free fro now only because few people are willing to place blame on the offensive people, but many more are willing to put down the defenders.
Who is the ranting one?
Besides me, lol.
No one seems to notice that Sen Feinstein, in her rambling response to Sen Cruz, admitted that her sole motivation was the events surrounding the Harvey Milk incident in San Francisco where “...she put her fingers in bloody holes...”
Seems to me that Didi is suffering a PTDS....which leads to the question of whether why she is eligible to hold a CCW permit in Caifornia, a permit that is routinly denied to most Californians without political connections.....
Feinstein is exactly the type of mentally unstable persons that are always responsible for events like Sandy Hook. For her to be carrying a concealed weapon in the halls of government is a tragedy waiting to happen.......
That a politician like Feinstein, who readily admits to her mental instability via a PTDS, is allowed a CCW goes to illustrate the elitism of the wacky left.....
Often protrayed as a “moderate,” Diane Feinstein is in reality “batcrap crazy.” (in addition to being one of the most corrupt members of Congress.)
All for Me. None for Thee.
Perhaps we should exert some pressure on the local Sheriffs Office about their their CCW permit policies with the suggestion that they recind Feinstein’s because of her instability.....
Ethics Committee???? she should be a subject of their investigation.... not the Chairperson!
Well, this is exactly how activist judges and justices justify their decisions without looking into original intent and understanding of the law, in this case the Constitution. We want judges to question left-leaning decisions and statutes that were based on what we think is a faulty reading of the Constitution. We like it when original intent is best understood in our favor.
But when it comes to questioning what we, the right, believe, well ofttimes that's another story. I care about having a nation under the rule of law not the rule of man. Therefore, I care very much about researching when necessary to understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. If you're standing on the truth, then that shouldn't scare you or anyone else becasue truth stands the test.
Again, I repeat, this is not what the Leftists are doing becasue by-and-large, they don't care about the Constitution or its original intent becasue the Constitution is basically an anti-government document. However, as I've pointed out in this thread, there is a legitimate role of government that is limited by the TEXTUAL INTENT of the Constitution. This spoken by one who calls himself a libertarian (but I'm a Constitutional libertarian).
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.