Cruz asks Feinstein about constitutionality of her Bill

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,272
15,043
136
Nice to see all the people who start off by calling the senator ugly.

Yes, quality arguments we have going on here. /s
Besides the personal attacks and name twisting I especially love the logic that a law isn't constitutional because it hasn't been ruled constitutional and yet a law isn't considered constitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional is an invalid argument.

It's kind of like the god exists argument. He doesn't exist because you can't prove he does exist but he does exist because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Well I got news for you, a law is still the law until challenged and decided otherwise. Claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional, only the courts have that power. The precedent shows laws can be made to limit the right to bears arms and has been the case since the 30's.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Yes, quality arguments we have going on here. /s
Besides the personal attacks and name twisting I especially love the logic that a law isn't constitutional because it hasn't been ruled constitutional and yet a law isn't considered constitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional is an invalid argument.

It's kind of like the god exists argument. He doesn't exist because you can't prove he does exist but he does exist because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Well I got news for you, a law is still the law until challenged and decided otherwise. Claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional, only the courts have that power. The precedent shows laws can be made to limit the right to bears arms and has been the case since the 30's.

This is the best you got? ROFL! You lose. Go read a law book you trolling moron.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
From you that's a compliment;)

You've supplied no evidence to the contrary on the argument presented. You didn't even try to refute any of the claims made by the Supreme Court, its justices, American Jurisprudence or the founding fathers. Wheres your balls son? You talk a lot of shit but do not have the mental fortitude to argue point by point! You simply can't anyways so I guess I should expect that. Mental midgets shouldn't challenge anyone if they cannot defend their position. Now take your trolling ass somewhere else or strap on some balls and man up in this thread.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
I'll make this simple....

Do you or do you not feel that rights...yours and mine...are being threatened?

I'm not just referring to the second amendment but others as well...
Examples:
NDAA
Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act
The dancing around the drones debate
The NSA's activities
...and many more examples

If she wants the amendment revoked, watered down or rewritten then no, she is not following the law.

I guess I get no answer....not unlike her responses
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Yes, quality arguments we have going on here. /s
Besides the personal attacks and name twisting I especially love the logic that a law isn't constitutional because it hasn't been ruled constitutional and yet a law isn't considered constitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional is an invalid argument.

It's kind of like the god exists argument. He doesn't exist because you can't prove he does exist but he does exist because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Well I got news for you, a law is still the law until challenged and decided otherwise. Claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional, only the courts have that power. The precedent shows laws can be made to limit the right to bears arms and has been the case since the 30's.

You really believe all of those laws that bar citizens from video taping police are constitutional because they haven't been challenged in court yet? I think we can move past the silly notion that because it hasn't been struck done the law is constitutional. And can still have a debate about laws being enacted and if they are constitutional.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,272
15,043
136
You guys are the ones that claimed her proposals are unconstitutional and yet you have no basis for that. She passed a similar that went unchallenged and there have been other laws that restricted rights that have been ruled constitutional.

It's one thing to argue that you THINK a law is unconstitutional but its another thing for YOU to say it is.

Now my very first post in this thread asked a pretty simple question, "which law has she sponsored that was unconstitutional".

You can make all the claims you want but they don't mean shit if there is no substance behind them. How many thought the "fine" in obamacare was unconstitutional? I'm sure everyone of you know-it-alls did and yet what was the ruling?

So how does one take anything another says seriously when they make statements of fact that are based on gut feeling? Most people don't take them seriously which is why, pc surgeon, your posts are looked at as a joke.

In a discussion by arm chair quarterbacks, which we all are, it would make sense that precedence trumps gut feeling every time. Would you like me to post the laws that have been enacted that restrict ones rights to bear arms? Or is the simple fact that you cannot own a rocket launcher proof enough that such restrictions exist? Or do I need to point out that in the heller case reasonable restrictions in the 2nd amendment are allowed?

So please, go ahead and continue making your baseless accusations it makes it easier to know who to ignore.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Well I think that 10+ million AR-15's and similar weapons easily fall into the Heller "common use" ruling. So, taking them away doesn't seem to match a constitutional ruling. Which was where Cruz was going with his questions. If you can't follow the really simple logic of the argument, well then there is no explaining really.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
You guys are the ones that claimed her proposals are unconstitutional and yet you have no basis for that. She passed a similar that went unchallenged and there have been other laws that restricted rights that have been ruled constitutional.

It's one thing to argue that you THINK a law is unconstitutional but its another thing for YOU to say it is.

Now my very first post in this thread asked a pretty simple question, "which law has she sponsored that was unconstitutional".

You can make all the claims you want but they don't mean shit if there is no substance behind them. How many thought the "fine" in obamacare was unconstitutional? I'm sure everyone of you know-it-alls did and yet what was the ruling?

So how does one take anything another says seriously when they make statements of fact that are based on gut feeling? Most people don't take them seriously which is why, pc surgeon, your posts are looked at as a joke.

In a discussion by arm chair quarterbacks, which we all are, it would make sense that precedence trumps gut feeling every time. Would you like me to post the laws that have been enacted that restrict ones rights to bear arms? Or is the simple fact that you cannot own a rocket launcher proof enough that such restrictions exist? Or do I need to point out that in the heller case reasonable restrictions in the 2nd amendment are allowed?

So please, go ahead and continue making your baseless accusations it makes it easier to know who to ignore.

You have yet to refute any of the claims made to date! You wanna talk about baseless? You fool, I have more references to law in one post than you've attempted to think about, much less add to the discussion. Thats why you are a troll. You ask for proof and its provided and yet since you can't debate it you just ignore it. How do you have a debate when only one side is providing evidence? You don't.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Well I think that 10+ million AR-15's and similar weapons easily fall into the Heller "common use" ruling. So, taking them away doesn't seem to match a constitutional ruling. Which was where Cruz was going with his questions. If you can't follow the really simple logic of the argument, well then there is no explaining really.

This as well. ivshanestupid cant seem to grasp such a simple concept.
 

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
Nice to see all the people who start off by calling the senator ugly.

Have you seen her? I am pretty sure I remember Captain Kirk fighting her hand to hand in the original star trek series.

If you would prefer I could say that she would fit right at Guantanamo bay with all of the other terrorists intent on depriving Americans of their rights but that wouldn't be fair to the people held there who are likely innocent.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0

We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms.
[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Miller [/FONT][/FONT]said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It is of note that it says AND not OR. The weapon must be BOTH dangerous AND unusual - and only in reference to a private citizen and not a professional soldier. The AK-47 is used by militaries around the world, but it is also a commonly owned weapon by private citizens in the US. This makes it usual and therefor any attempt to ban it would violate this SCOTUS ruling.

 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,272
15,043
136
Well I think that 10+ million AR-15's and similar weapons easily fall into the Heller "common use" ruling. So, taking them away doesn't seem to match a constitutional ruling. Which was where Cruz was going with his questions. If you can't follow the really simple logic of the argument, well then there is no explaining really.

Yes that's the argument you are making but it still doesn't answer my original question. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Banning firearms and all equipment related (magazines/ammo) that are common use. Basically her entire bill goes against the heller ruling. Not sure where you get the idea that I'm making stuff up. And I'm not stating my opinion. My opinion would be that the Heller ruling shouldn't even be necessary and that gun grabbers really don't understand firearms on any level and are for the most part unwilling to listen or learn.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,073
136
Well she didn't answer the question, but at least she got indignant while informing us about "imploding" bullets.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,323
48,589
136
Of course we can infringe the right to bear arms, we can also make laws limiting the free exercise of speech, religion, and assembly. How could anyone who understands the US constitution argue otherwise?

It never ceases to amaze me how much professed constitutional experts get horribly wrong. Then again most people just assume the constitution means whatever supports the position they already wanted to hold.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Of course we can infringe the right to bear arms, we can also make laws limiting the free exercise of speech, religion, and assembly. How could anyone who understands the US constitution argue otherwise?

It never ceases to amaze me how much professed constitutional experts get horribly wrong. Then again most people just assume the constitution means whatever supports the position they already wanted to hold.

If you're so right refute the evidence submitted previously by me. Otherwise your argument holds no water. Thanks for playing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,323
48,589
136
If you're so right refute the evidence submitted previously by me. Otherwise your argument holds no water. Thanks for playing.

What you wrote was almost entirely nonsensical, what evidence did you think you provided?

Let me just shorthand it to you from your own 'conclusions'.

We have established that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

We have established that the courts are bound to it.

Sure.

We have established it should be literally interpreted

We sure didn't, you quoted an out of context piece from a law textbook. I was unaware that such things were considered binding legal precedent, but I'm not a lawyer. I do happen to know of a whole bunch of lawyers that make up the supreme court however, and they've issued lots of rulings over the years that absolutely show it should not be literally interpreted, and in fact never has been.

So really right there your argument has been destroyed.

We have established that it is to be liberally construed in the favor of the beneficiary, the people.

I found this to be interesting as it directly contradicts your previous point. If the constitution is to be literally interpreted then there is no leeway to 'liberally construe' anything.

We have established that government cannot restrict rights by the 9th Amendment.

That's not what the 9th amendment says. At all.

We have established that government only has the power given to it by the 10th Amendment.

Not exactly, it just restates what was already said earlier.

We have established that government cannot use emergency powers to enact laws in conflict with the Constitution.

We have established we have the right to petition the court for unjust laws/statutes

None of which is at issue here.

By your definition of infringement any restriction whatsoever is unconstitutional. This is clearly, facially false and has been shown to be so by any one of at this point probably hundreds of supreme court decisions.

Your argument relies on a bad assumption, attempts to base its legal footing on a LAW TEXTBOOK, and then draws absurd conclusions. The main difficulty in responding to your argument was unraveling your chain of logic because it was frankly pretty incoherent.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
If you're so right refute the evidence submitted previously by me. Otherwise your argument holds no water. Thanks for playing.

You don't seem to understand that some people just revel in big government authoritarianism, they love being part of a government that can take anything and everything the citizen owns on a whim. A government that will change any law, will negate any Amendment for the smallest of excuses. They are of the opinion that you didn't build that, you don't own that, you can't keep that and you must obey them.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
What you wrote was almost entirely nonsensical, what evidence did you think you provided?

Let me just shorthand it to you from your own 'conclusions'.



Sure.



We sure didn't, you quoted an out of context piece from a law textbook. I was unaware that such things were considered binding legal precedent, but I'm not a lawyer. I do happen to know of a whole bunch of lawyers that make up the supreme court however, and they've issued lots of rulings over the years that absolutely show it should not be literally interpreted, and in fact never has been.

So really right there your argument has been destroyed.

Wrong. did you miss the Marbury v. madison case buddy? I think you did. You only skimmed it. Also explain how anything before or after the quote invalidates the argument? Here READ this, not skim.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803

Marshall argued that the "distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." Marshall continued:

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act…. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it… . If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

For Marshall, the idea that an unconstitutional act of legislature could "bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect" was "an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." Thus, Marshall concluded that congressional legislation contrary to the federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.

Goodbye "opinion" and recognize Supreme court ruling. You would have to be an idiot to assume that the Constitution wasn't the supreme law or that the above from a Supreme Court Justice is of no effect.


I found this to be interesting as it directly contradicts your previous point. If the constitution is to be literally interpreted then there is no leeway to 'liberally construe' anything.

You miss it. It is to be literally interpreted, however if it is to be construed, it is to be liberally construed in the favor of the people. No other direction is provided.

16 American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 97

"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property"

"Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"

Great so this is invalid because you say so. Sorry, you are going to have to prove that the Constitution is not a contract for the benefit of the people. You simply cannot do that. Your argument is destroyed before you even start.

That's not what the 9th amendment says. At all.

Prove otherwise. Saying it means nothing. Supply evidence to contrary. You cannot do this either.

Not exactly, it just restates what was already said earlier.

You'd have to be a moron, or think the founders to be morons to repeat themselves in consecutive amendments.

None of which is at issue here.

Of course it is. All of it is at the issue of jurisdiction. You simply fail in understanding that simple concept.

By your definition of infringement any restriction whatsoever is unconstitutional. This is clearly, facially false and has been shown to be so by any one of at this point probably hundreds of supreme court decisions.

That wasn't my definition of infringement. It is the literal definition.

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.


16 American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 155

"Since the Constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement (again!) by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgement of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment."

Irrespective of their opinion! BTW, American Jurisprudence is the standard of study for judges. So to imply that they carry no weight would be idiotic. But you've always displayed contempt for the rule of law so thats not surprising.

Your argument relies on a bad assumption, attempts to base its legal footing on a LAW TEXTBOOK, and then draws absurd conclusions. The main difficulty in responding to your argument was unraveling your chain of logic because it was frankly pretty incoherent.

:rolleyes: I imagine anyone who regards the Bill of Rights as privileges of the people would hold your ignorant view. Yet it's quite clear the intent was to limit government. I don't expect you to understand, really, because that would be in direct conflict with your political allegiance. Sorry buddy, but rights are not to be at the whim of the majority or judicial activism.

What I found most telling about your response was that of the 9th amendment. Could you clarify this for us? Cause you only made your opinion known and didn't supply any facts or definitions to the contrary.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
You don't seem to understand that some people just revel in big government authoritarianism, they love being part of a government that can take anything and everything the citizen owns on a whim. A government that will change any law, will negate any Amendment for the smallest of excuses. They are of the opinion that you didn't build that, you don't own that, you can't keep that and you must obey them.

And thats why education of your rights is so important. You go into any courtroom unprepared you will lose. Know your rights!
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Of course we can infringe the right to bear arms, we can also make laws limiting the free exercise of speech, religion, and assembly. How could anyone who understands the US constitution argue otherwise?

It never ceases to amaze me how much professed constitutional experts get horribly wrong. Then again most people just assume the constitution means whatever supports the position they already wanted to hold.

Its nice to see that leftists dont believe in the 2nd Amendment and free speech. Those rights are not to be violated.