There’s been some interesting flack in the past couple of days ever since Sen. Ted Cruz R-Tex had some words for Sen. Diane Feinstein D -California, on the Constitutional rights of the people. He pointed out that the same phrase about the right of the people is also found in the 1st and 4th Amendments.
He brought up a good question concerning the Congress’ determining the limitations on the Constitution. He asked if Feinstein would “deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the 2nd Amendment in the context of the 1st or 4th Amendments. Namely would she consider it constitutional for congress to specify that the 1st 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 4th Amendment 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?”
For this question, and his comments to the Senate committee, specifically Sen. Feinstein, Cruz has been the subject of Alinsky tactics. He’s been picked as the target, they’re trying to personalize and polarize it. They are trying to ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. And they are doing their best to try and ridicule him. The sad thing is, that Cruz like other strong Constitutional conservatives before him are coming under attack from both the left and right.
First there was Charles Krauthammer from FOX who said, “Cruz over shot” on his statements and thought Cruz “appeared a little bit offensive.” Seems to me and a lot of other folks that the Senator was genuine in his question, and the offensive part was the address by Feinstein who acted as though she was scolding a student, reminding him that she’s been around for a long time, and on the committee for 20 years. To that, I’d say she’s been there about 14 years too long… but I digress.
Then there was Joe Scarborough on his show, Morning Joe accusing Cruz as being “willfully ignorant” and lamented, “Did Ted Cruz not go to law school?”, referring to the D.C vs. Heller decision by the SCOTUS in 2008. What Scarborough doesn’t bother thinking about when he questions the Senator’s understanding of that case, which interestingly enough Cruz was there representing 31 states, is that Antonin Scalia and others ruled that weapons to be prohibited were those deemed dangerous and unusual, and that weapons which were for common use could not be prohibited as consistent per the 2nd Amendment. As Ted Cruz points out, assault rifles are nothing more than “deer rifles with different cosmetic features,” and there are more than 4 million of them in circulation, in other words, these are common place in our nation.
There was this little nugget by lib talker Stephanie Miller who called the Senator, the real lady like name “douche nozzle”, and referred to him as a “teeny weenie Junior Senator.” I have to wonder though, if Cruz is so teeny weenie, why the all the attention? He must be doing something right or there would be no one bothering to criticize him.
Ted Cruz knows the Constitution. He understands the context and the intent of the founders when they framed the Bill of Rights. He understands that the founders specifically included freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment, protection from government under the 4th Amendment and the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms specifically to guard and protect themselves from the government under the 2nd Amendment. Ted Cruz understands the words of men such as George Mason when he said, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”