Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s plea to bring her assault weapons ban to the floor for a vote, our essayist discusses her bumpy road to defeat.
In true upstart form, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) last week took on Democratic counterpart Dianne Feinstein in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her proposed assault weapons ban.
He refused to roll over for the liberal-Democrat juggernaut and embrace their objective: Securing weapons from law-abiding citizens, which will do nothing to prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law with their own ill-acquired firearms. Sen. Cruz proceeded to read the Bill of Rights to Sen. Feinstein. He reminded her, and her colleagues, of the oath they took, to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.
While he was explaining that the 2nd Amendment all but precludes Congress from issuing widespread bans on firearms, including assault rifles, Feinstein lost her temper and fired back:
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'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it.
You Choose What?
This is one of the most laughable assertions from the senior California senator, aside from her snide assurance in 2012 that she would always “protect a woman's right to choose.” Choose what, exactly? She cannot choose many jobs. She also is losing the opportunity to choose any doctor she wants, or the choice of paying lower premiums. In California, high taxes, spending, and regulations are limiting the choices of entrepreneurs, male and female, while depriving women (and men, of course) from choosing the best school, regardless of one's home address. Feinstein is “pro-choice” in name only.
Yet aside from one of many baseless claims from Feinstein, the same senator claims authority to legislate on banning assault rifles by appealing to her direct experience with the death of political colleagues in San Francisco. Her encounters with death are nothing compared to what police officers face every day walking the beat. Yet even putting aside expansion refutations, legislators have no reason, no right, to engage in emotional legislating.
Just because one Congressman was cut by a butter knife in second grade, say, that does not entitle him to issue a butter knife ban. One has to wonder how much inane legislation we must contend with because of the past problems of our elected leaders.
Finally, here is another assertion of Sen. Feinstein’s in her exchange with Sen. Cruz:
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 Is Insurance?
Feinstein supported Obama-WaxmanCare, the insurance mandate that would force Americans to purchase health insurance. The constitutionality of the law was upheld under Congress's power to tax. That, however, was not the argument of Democratic leadership. Sen. Feinstein’s support for a weapons ban flies in the face of research, rhetoric, and reality. How many more studies will it take before Democratic leaders in Washington acknowledge that controlling the guns does not control the violence? Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects individual ownership (U.S. v Verdugo-Irquidez; District of Columbia v. Heller)
Perhaps Feinstein would like to explain her support for the extra-invasive Patriot Act, which grazes on brazen violation of the 4th Amendment against unwarranted search and seizure? Delving farther into her record, perhaps she can explain why she voted “not guilty” to removing President Clinton in the Meaning of Is case after he lied under oath to a grand jury?
You don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that the Constitution does not permit Congress to enact excessive environmental regulations, or to spend money the country does not have on administrative agencies outside of the domain of the legislative branch.
Voters should commend Sen. Cruz for standing his ground, for taking on the young and the old in Washington, many of whom insist on asserting their seniority as the authority for saying and doing as they please. With Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and even Marco Rubio, the Young Guns Republicans in the Senate are bringing a real fight to the floor and to the halls of Congress.
Every American should be grateful.
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a writer and blogger on issues both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A lifelong resident of Southern California, he currently lives in Torrance. He may be contacted at arthurschaper@hotmail.com, aschaper1.blogspot.com and at asheisministries.blogspot.com. Also see waxmanwatch.blogspot.com.
