Senator Ted Cruz turned (as he says over and over) “the senior Senator from California” Dianne Feinstein into a sniveling, whiny female who turned to tried-and-true female weapons of war against a guy – an unfair fight that has no relevance to the fight (nor to the questions she was asked) – about the same as pleading a headache. After being asked several questions about how the Constitution affects certain decisions by Congress, and currently gun control, Feinstein’s answer was to remind him that she had been on the Judiciary Committee for 20 years (far too long – that’s the first problem) and that she has seen dead people and therefore intimated that gun control is appropriate, and by the way Feinstein said she has been “up-close-and-personal to the Constitution.” Senator Patrick Leahy stepped in and tried to make state’s rights equivalent to federal rights, and Senator Dick Durbin Watch Cruz’ face in the video.
Senator Dick Durbin tries to intimate that Ted Cruz “professes” to have some experience with the Constitution. Cruz was a law Clerk for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnqusit. He was the only Hispanic to clerk for a Chief Justice and was the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, the youngest Solicitor General in the U.S. and the longest serving Solicitor General in the state, and the first Hispanic to hold the position.
He also drafted the amicus brief for the Heller case you hear mentioned by Feinstein and friends numerous times in the exchange below. Cruz was presented the amicus to the Court. The brief was signed-onto by 31 states, that’s almost two-thirds. Senator Cruz has authored over 0 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral agruments before SCOTUS. I’d say he has some “experience” with the Constitution, as Feinstein clearly says SCOTUS interprets law (supposedly based on the Constitution).
Columbia (District of Columbia) v. Heller refers to the lawsuit against Dick Anthony Heller claiming his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms inside Washington, D.C. Heller won the case at the Supreme Court.
Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.
Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.
The District Court dismissed Heller’s complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals construed Heller’s complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it in his home only when necessary for self defense, and held that the total ban on handguns violated the individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari….
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Court assumes that a license will satisfy Heller’s prayer for relief and therefore does not address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. Assuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Source: Lawnix
That wasn’t the end. The Court did not rule on 1) weapons registration, 2) the prohibition of “assault weapons” and 3) the prohibition of large magazines. Heller sued and wanted the newly established restrictions on the three vacated. He lost in a District Court and was denied the right to register his gun because it was a bottom-loaded weapon.
Heller sued. In 2010 a District Court judge denied his challenge to the restrictions.
I believe today residents of Washington, D.C. can have a hand-gun without unusual features in their home, assembled and loaded. Close to 100 lawsuits have already been through courts or are making their way through courts. I’m not nearly smart enough to sort it out, but in Washington, D.C. your operable and unusual hand-gun must stay inside your home.
So, I went through the above because Feinstein alludes to parts of Heller on which she is basing her right to prohibit the right of Americans to keep and bear arms and Cruz was involved in the Heller case.
Begin video transcript:
CRUZ: …you mention that there are some 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms, that if this bill were passed, Congress would have deemed prohibited. It seems to me that all of us should begin as our foundational document, with the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The term “The Right of the People,” when the Framer’s 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 redress of grievances.
It’s also found in the Fourth Amendment, “The Right of the People” to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the question I would pose to the senior Senator from California is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment?
Namely, would she consider it constitutional for the First Amendment to apply to only the following books and shall not apply to the books Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I’m not a 6th Grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a Mayor for 9 years. I walked in. I saw people shot [Harvey Milk]. I looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. Sandy Hook youngsters were dismembered.
Look, there are other weapons. I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up-close-and-personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here, and so I…you…you know…it’s fine if you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it.
Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of Bills. I study the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well-educated on the Constitution. Incidentally, this does not prohibit…you use the word prohibit…it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a Bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would ask yet another question of the senior Senator of California. I think nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion and yet at the same time I would note that she chose not answer the question that I asked, which is, in her judgement would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not, and to specify the number.
FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious: No
Here it turns into a circus with Texas against Vermont and pornography. At 4:53 in:
CRUZ: And is it the view of the Senior Senator from California that the Congress should be in the business of specifying particular books, or for that matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment are there particular individuals that are not covered by the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: Sir, Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. If they strike down the law, they strike down the law. The tests in Heller, with respect to unusual weapons and two other things, I think, do not cover…in other words they cover an exemption for assault weapons. And if this is brought up before the court, and it should pass, I sure that argument will be made.
At 5:44 in Senator Dick Durbin references Cruz who “professes to have some experience with the Constitution, none of these rights are absolute. None of the them. The Heller decision goes specifically to the question of this Amendment and tells us…when they were asked in the Heller decision…a panel of Republican appointed judges rejected the Second Amendment challenge to D.C.’s assault weapons ban and magazine limits – a Second Amendment challenge. The D.C. circuit court held that such laws do not effectively disarm individuals….end video
Feinstein’s legislation passed the Judiciary Committee 10-8 and now goes to the full Senate. Other links talking about the Cruz-Feinstein exchange, Puma by Design (whom I thank for the graphic above), Hot Air, more controversy aired at The Blaze and Jim Treacher at Daily Caller cuts to the chase. Brilliant summation here.