Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Mar '13 01:19
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/fireworks_ted_cruz_vs_dianne_feinstein_on_gun_rights.html

    Feinstein refuses to answer Cruz' very specific question and goes on a Dutchesslike screed of her own credentials. Cruz patiently repeats the question.

    In the interests of truth, and economy should Senators and other politicians just answer the question they are asked? When they don't should the chairman point out their evasiveness?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Mar '13 13:40
    Originally posted by normbenign
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/fireworks_ted_cruz_vs_dianne_feinstein_on_gun_rights.html

    Feinstein refuses to answer Cruz' very specific question and goes on a Dutchesslike screed of her own credentials. Cruz patiently repeats the question.

    In the interests of truth, and economy should Senators and other politicians just answer the question they are asked? When they don't should the chairman point out their evasiveness?
    Although Feinstein got a little flustered, after Leahy and Durbin came to her rescue, I think the Dems clearly won the exchange. Cleary, the First and Fourth Amendment ARE limited as is the Second and it IS the role of the legislature to place limits on those Amendments. Those limits can be tested by the courts, of course, but all three Amendments are clearly limited.
  3. 15 Mar '13 14:25
    Originally posted by normbenign
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/fireworks_ted_cruz_vs_dianne_feinstein_on_gun_rights.html

    Feinstein refuses to answer Cruz' very specific question and goes on a Dutchesslike screed of her own credentials. Cruz patiently repeats the question.

    In the interests of truth, and economy should Senators and other politicians just answer the question they are asked? When they don't should the chairman point out their evasiveness?
    The Chair should have slammed Sleaze Cruz for wasting precious legislative time. Sleaze Cruz is pathetic.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Mar '13 15:30
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The Chair should have slammed Sleaze Cruz for wasting precious legislative time. Sleaze Cruz is pathetic.
    Whoa. Relax. I said above I agreed with Feinstein, but the question was a legitimate question and the debate is a legitimate debate. You're overreacting.
  5. 15 Mar '13 15:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    Whoa. Relax. I said above I agreed with Feinstein, but the question was a legitimate question and the debate is a legitimate debate. You're overreacting.
    "SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is 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?"

    One of the truisms of lawyering is "Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to." Cruz is a Harvard educated lawyer who has argued on the same side of this argument in court. Clearly any law student including any interns in Cruz' office could have answered this question for him, by citing constitutional restrictions on the various Bill of rights amendments. Had he chosen to rehearse it with them.

    "But boss, those amendments have been restricted by legislation."

    I personally think he was playing to his audience of gun advocates who, willfully ignorant of this, of this, will cheer him.
  6. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    15 Mar '13 15:46
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The Chair should have slammed Sleaze Cruz for wasting precious legislative time. Sleaze Cruz is pathetic.
    More effeminate, angry, and intellectually bankrupt arguments from Moon1969. This feels like 'Groundhog Day'.
  7. 16 Mar '13 00:03
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The Chair should have slammed Sleaze Cruz for wasting precious legislative time. Sleaze Cruz is pathetic.
    The Cruz question required a yes or no answer. It was Feinstein who wasted time.
  8. 16 Mar '13 00:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    Although Feinstein got a little flustered, after Leahy and Durbin came to her rescue, I think the Dems clearly won the exchange. Cleary, the First and Fourth Amendment ARE limited as is the Second and it IS the role of the legislature to place limits on those Amendments. Those limits can be tested by the courts, of course, but all three Amendments are clearly limited.
    The Cruz question is not that there are no limitations, but that in the case of the 1st there are no lists of books that are not protected, nor people that aren't protected by the 4th. Neither Feinstein, nor her cohorts ever really answered Cruz' question. Why? Because he understands the issue at hand and they don't, so they skirt the issue.