Diane Feinstein Cuts off Ted Cruz’s Attempt to Mansplain the Constitution

cruz-guns

Junior Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was in the middle of mansplaining to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about how he cherry picks which amendments we put no restrictions on (guess which one?!) on Thursday, when Feinstein hoisted him on the protruding petard of his hubris.

Feinstein was introducing a bill that bans federal assault weapons, and you know how that issue sucks all of the brain cells out of Republicans until they’re left with nothing but NRA talking points… Well, it did it again.

Watch here:

Transcript from TPM: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/feinstein-snaps-at-cruz-im-not-sixth-grader?ref=fpa

Cruz, a former constitutional law professor, began by reciting portions of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and asked Feinstein whether the power of government to restrict certain types of guns would be equally appropriate given those provisions.

“Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I’m not a sixth grader. 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.”

Feinstein continued: “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. … I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.”

Yes, Ted, even though Diane is a woman, she does actually know some stuff. Shocking, I know. Whereas Ted, who has all of the advantages of being Harvard educated and male, and thus Republicanally superior by birth and an elitist to boot, takes zero personal responsibility for his inability to understand basic issues. Did Harvard not teach him or was he too lazy and entitled to learn? (Remember that Cruz thinks Commies are hiding out at Harvard so his mental state might be an issue here, but still, he’s a MAN! He KNOWS STUFF!)

We’ll let Chuck Schumer explain further to the junior Senator, “In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? It’s Constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional. Similarly, you can’t falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, we have libel laws. Every one of these is an impingement on the sacred First Amendment, upheld as Constitutional. There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn’t add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent.”

Translation for Ted: Please stop making a fool of yourself and pretending you don’t know basic things. Rights are not without limits. This, I’m sure, is BRAND NEW NEWS to a constitutional scholar. But in case Ted’s still confused, I direct him to former President Bush and the free speech “zones” or the attempted restrictions on Occupy’s free speech, including usage of cameras.

In fact, I’m glad the Senator brought this up, because it’s high time we had a discussion about the many rights Republicans don’t mind trampling on. The only super special one with no limits is the Second Amendment, unfettered by reality or safety or sanity.

Somehow, Republicans fear free speech but feel all Americans are entitled to weapons of mass destruction designed for war. One is free and feeds no corporation or industry but the other feeds a very large industry made up of powerful corporations with a propensity for lie filled lobbying during election years. No wonder Cruz has to pretend he doesn’t quite understand the obvious limitations of rights. Also, books don’t kill people and neither does speech. Republicans seem to have an inherent aversion to the responsibilities that go along with rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.