Cruz and Feinstein in blow up over the Second Amendment
My experience has been - and it is admittedly a small sampling of liberals - that the left refuses to discuss Constitutional limits on federal power.
They accuse you of trying to trap them, or, as in the case of Senator Diane Feinstein who was asked a question by Senator Ted Cruz about applying her interpretation of the Second Amendment to the First Amendment, they whine about being lectured, or as Nancy Pelosi dismissively said when asked if the individual Obamacare mandate was constitutional replied "Are you serious?"
They refuse to engage on the question of constitutional limits because they don't believe in any - except when it comes to guns, or conservative radio, or the amount of wealth one can accumulate. Then they become originalists very quickly.
But this exchange between Cruz and Feinstein should be put in a time capsule and pulled out 100 years from now.
"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "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 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 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?
"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein. "Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I've been up -- 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 know, it's fine 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've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture."