Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Cruz vs. Feinstein

March 15, 2013 @ 4:24 am

Should senators consider the constitutionality of bills BEFORE they vote for them or should they rely on the courts to decide for them? It's Texas vs. California with Senators Cruz and Feinstein clashing (clunking?) over the issue. WARNING: This debate is not for 6th graders as their intelligence seems to be insulted...

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (47)


  • Add A Comment

  • SeattleD wrote...
    I don't understand why gun nuts
    January 1, 2002 7:01 am
    are not demanding that fully-automatic weapons be legalized. How is it when those are taken away it doesn't go against the second amendment? Same with ground to air missiles.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @D
    March 17, 2013 3:42 pm
    It DID go against the second amendment - the intention was that I be armed like a soldier should I be called into service by my elected sheriff (the well regulated militia that the left misinterprets when peddling their gun grabbing agenda). Soldiers carry selective fire. Why shouldn't I? Any idea where I can buy a few cheap ground to air missiles?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    That guy is such a moron...
    January 1, 2002 8:18 am
    Conservatives use the constitution to defend all of their idiotic ideas. They cherry pick the constitution like they cherry pick the bible, like they cherry pick numbers, science, facts...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    My favorite pull quotes...
    March 15, 2013 5:23 am
    Frankenfeinstein; "Isn't that enough for the people of the united states." "Do they need a bazooka." "Do they need other high powered weapons."

    Nothing is more bone chilling than hearing a politician tell me what I may or may not need. How much food do I need, senator? How much water? How much shelter? How much protection?

    Turban Durbin; "None of these rights are absolute."

    Not when you have people that think they're our masters instead of our representatives.

    P.S. These paragons of virtue thought they had quite a retort with 'child porn'. Someone may want to inform them that it's the product of a violent sex crime in the first place. Last time I checked, a gun wasn't the product of a violent crime. They're usually made with machine tools. Durbin was pretty quick with the child porn answer though... hmmm

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Only the crazies who think they are the righteous in their beliefs
    March 15, 2013 7:51 am
    think the constitution was written without flaw. If that were true women would still not be allowed to vote and black people would be 3/5 of a person. Get a grip. Jefferson banned all foreign trade and his embargo act sought to keep American vessels from leaving port. Madison was a staunch pluralist. Hamilton envisioned and sought to build a large central government. So did Washington. John Jay created (and sanctioned) the concept of jury nullification. Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. As President, Washington used the army against US citizens to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. They were just men with a bunch of ideas doing their best to get a document together that most of them (all white men) could agree on. I seriously doubt they wrote it thinking some day Rand Paul would use the Constitution to excuse his every moronic thought.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Well, if the Constitution needs changing, then go thru the amendment process.
    January 1, 2002 9:53 am
    DON'T just pass unconstitutional laws and see if you can sneak them by the courts - or at least have them in effect for a couple of years before being told no. ....... I seriously doubt the founders were anticipating the Westboro Baptist Church, either, but.......

    .

    BTW, I thought I was the only one who knew about or referred to the Alien and Sedation Acts. .. We COULD have easily become a dictatorship way back then.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Ron,
    March 15, 2013 9:23 am
    This bill is NOT unconstitutional. And anybody who knows anything about this issue should know that. Cruz doesn't know that because he's an illiterate moron who like most Tea Party idiots lacks intellectual curiosity and honesty. From SCOTUS: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding (as in Miller v US) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    I'm not debating the bill. I'm addressing Boze's question.
    January 1, 2002 11:04 am
    IF Feinstein et al are reasonably convinced their law is constitutional, then by all means, go ahead with it.

    My point is that constitutionality is usually NOT the first consideration of the left.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    What on God's green Earth's make you say that?
    March 15, 2013 11:08 am
    Maybe a better question for Boze would have been, should we have to revisit the constitutionality of EVERY issue that every freaking moron is not aware of every time something comes up for a vote? Or should we rely on the fact that our public officials should be at least somewhat familiar with what has ALREADY been ruled constitutional before they open their big fat mouths? But then again, Cruz is from Texas. :(
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Well, YES - we SHOULD revisit the constitution each time an issue comes up for a vote.
    March 15, 2013 11:34 am
    Because whenever we enact legislation, we SHOULD be reasonably assured it's legal. Otherwise, yadda, yadda, all that I've already said today.

    Now, apparently you and Sen. Cruz have a difference of interpretation as to the constitutionality of Sen. Feinstein's legislation. ... ... Perhaps you missed my other point above that IF Sen. Feinstein is convinced of constitutionality, then go ahead. ... Others apparently differ, and one side or the other likely is wrong. And that's not likely based on the shape of their mouths or where they hail from.

    But I am not a constitutional lawyer to debate THAT here.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    No. We don't. Cruz went to Harvard. He darn well knows.
    March 15, 2013 12:01 pm
    He's playing it up for the tea party idiots who believe that jazz because he thinks he's an up and commer. I wish he would just up and leave, because like all the other tea party morons he will NEVER be elected to national office. He's like an uncharming Rick Perry, good enough for Texas, but PLEASE keep him there. The constitution is the last refuge of those who think their arguments are otherwise untenable.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Gaygirl - Even the Supreme Court doesn't 'know' everything ahead of time.
    March 15, 2013 12:27 pm
    And it certainly doesn't agree with the 9th Circuit Court most of the time. ... And even if lower courts are dead wrong in a law, the SC can't overturn a ruling without hearing a case. ... So, even a generally known unconstitutional act may be a few years before the SC hears it. ..... That's the track time those pushing questionable laws rely on.

    .

    By the way, don't alienate those 'tea party morons'. The progressive movement also started out populist. And populist has been all over the political spectrum the past 200 years. Let's not revisit some of the wacko populist ideas of 100 years ago. ala Woodrow Wilson.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Mr. Prevost, we disagree on a lot, but I find it refreshing
    March 15, 2013 1:06 pm
    that you don't resort to calling me stupid. But if even SCOTUS doesn't know everything ahead of time then how can the layman? I don't believe that anybody on the left or right brings forward bills they know or believe to be unconstitutional, but I will grant that I am far more optimistic about our public officials than some on this blog. Paranoia has become a mainstream if not ubiquitous part of the conservative movement. I do believe your statements feed into that sometimes. As for the Tea Party, I'm about to vomit. They are not a populist movement. They practically worships at the alter of big business and millionaires and do their best to protect them from paying higher taxes. That's not populism.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    don't confuse the vast majorityof tea party 'members' with those who claim leadership.
    March 15, 2013 2:40 pm
    Glenn Beck MAY have started the movement, but most of those attracted are populist. And in days gone by, they were the same type of people who supported Huey Long and his 'share the wealth' programs (extreme left or extreme right ? - confusing, but little difference). And in the past were the main supporters of William Jennings Bryant and Woodrow Wilson. Of course, they are also the same type who elected Hitler in Germany.

    The word populism may SOUND appealing, but populists generally follow what popularly appears to the working class - usually lower middle income. Of course they can often be mislead and fooled, but we're talking about the guy down at the bar - not the mayor.

    Maybe you define populism differently, but in the long run there is little difference between the tea party and occupy wall street - at least among the followers.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I did a paper on the Alien and Sedation Acts back in college.
    March 15, 2013 9:32 am
    Pretty freaky deaky schtuff. I am glad that America went the way it went.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Roomtemp "Bone chilling"?
    March 15, 2013 8:21 am
    Surely you jest or is it you lived a sheltered life.How about a business telling a worker (who has given that business a good portion of their working life)we are letting you go because we are relocating to China,or how about a family being told No more assistance for you because the government no longer funds the program your family qualified for.Or the person applying for a job is told no job is available in your wage range and your too qualified for a lower wage job.That would be Bone Chilling
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @messiah101...
    March 15, 2013 2:48 pm
    Yup... I find it bone chilling. When a hypocritical pistol packing democrat senator tells me how much protection I need to guard my loved ones, my neighbors, those that can't protect themselves, or myself. Or when a republican mayor, who deems himself my master, tells me I can't have a 17oz soda or some salt on my fries. And I don't even drink soda, rarely eat fries, or own a bazooka.

    "Surely you jest or is it you lived a sheltered life."

    No, I'm not jesting (jousting maybe). And I doubt that many outside of a few Ethiopians would consider my life 'sheltered'. I grew up in a very poor single parent family, dug through dumpsters as a kid to get recyclables to buy a bicycle, was working full time at 14yrs old and left home at 15. There have been times when I had no shelter or food at all. I'm not saying that to garner sympathy, nor want any. Just saying, you're way way off with that comment.

    "_we are letting you go because we are relocating to China"

    Maybe not having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world would help. Especially since the tax just gets rolled into the price of their product and consumers end up paying it anyway. The Chinese are willing to work for less because they're hungry. As their standard of living improves they will demand higher wages and better conditions, just like we did. I'm not opposed to some trade barriers until things stable out, but we're living in a global economy now. We should probably get used to it. There are lots of really good reasons to do business here. We should be using the carrot and not the stick.

    "No more assistance for you because the government no longer funds the program your family qualified for."

    I'm all for helping the poor and the hungry. Many of the jobs I do are for free, or whatever they can pay, to people who can't afford it. I have no problem with the government handing out food. Actual nutritious staple food, not EBT cards you can buy cupcakes and potato chips with. I'm old enough to remember standing in line for government cheese. If you want government food you should have to stand in line to get your box. If you want welfare you should have to provide some service for it. Poverty should not be comfortable. That only enables and reinforces it.

    "_no job is available in your wage range and your too qualified for a lower wage job."

    I actually agree with you here. I don't think there is any such thing as 'too qualified'. If a person is willing and able to do a job who cares what their qualifications are. (I imagine that happens because employers generally like stability and feel like an 'overqualified' person will bail on them at the earliest opportunity. But that's just a guess.)

    Have a nice weekend messiah101 :-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HikerACE wrote...
    Roomtemp
    March 16, 2013 6:51 pm
    Nice response. I doubt the socialist can argue your points but will undoubtedly come up with some nonsense.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Everything makes the right pee their pants.
    March 16, 2013 9:51 pm
    They get the vapors easier than a virgin at a prison rodeo. I think it's because conservatives scare easier than liberals. It's a scientific fact. You could spend all day answering Roomtemp; he thinks he's the reincarnation of Aristotle and can go on and on and on. But I will say this, because I really cannot stand it when the right keeps propagating lies, U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens. U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1% in 2011.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood...
    March 18, 2013 1:50 pm
    "They get the vapors easier than a virgin at a prison rodeo."

    That's actually kinda funny.

    "It's a scientific fact."

    No, it isn't.

    "U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes_"

    Where do you think corporations get their money from? The cost of corporate taxes is rolled in to the price of their products and the consumer pays them. It's just another hidden tax. They take taxes out of your paycheck, out of the products you buy, and dilute your currency causing price inflation. All are forms of taxation.

    "use of overseas tax havens_"

    If the corporations flee to tax havens, maybe we should become one ourselves.

    "he thinks he's the reincarnation of Aristotle and can go on and on and on."

    I'm pretty sure it was Genghis Khan and I can't let Chuck have all the fun. ;-) Feel free to use your scroll wheel when you see my nick. It won't bother me at all. I know you have very important bashing to do and ad-homs to deliver. Carry on, may it bring you catharsis...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    well i would scroll but my finger hurts after a while lol
    March 18, 2013 8:25 pm
    You know what would bring me catharsis? If the right could get their facts right and stop propagating lies and half truths. But you can't help me there...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Two concepts of legality (and humanity)
    March 15, 2013 5:30 am
    An age old debate. Is man intrinsically good or evil? ..... Here we have tow schools of thought.

    The first being - as I believe the Founders intended - that all laws enacted should consider their legality/constitutionality BEFORE passage. Under this concept, we generally should not worry about laws being later overturned and voided by courts. Thereby resulting in hurried changes and perhaps even restitution.

    The second concept is that anything and everything if legal until proven otherwise. No matter how outlandish an idea may seem, pass it as law and reap whatever until or if the courts strike it down. The advantage of this concept - for those who endorse it - is that your agenda can be pressed and those who are advantaged by such legislation will so enjoy until stricken down. ... And courts do not move all that quickly. ... or may actually either agree with you or simply chose not to act.

    This second concept is the whole basis of the 'progressive' movement. And the basis of the concept that rights come from government, and are neither from God nor are inherent to humanity.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Ron P
    March 15, 2013 8:28 am
    If the Greatest Book ever written The Bible is still open to interpretation 2000 yrs after it was written then I guess the 200 yr old US Constitution is also.You also left out the Conservative movement as a group that brings its share of cases before the Supremes in order to advance their agenda.Remember when a case is brought to the Supreme Court the side that brings the case is in a no lose situation because if they lose things remain the same if they win they get what they want (a win)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    The difference, messiah, is that The Bible is not civil law.
    January 1, 2002 10:03 am
    Even 'thou shalt not kill' needs to be codified to have the force of law. .... You might have a point if the Constitution were open to individual interpretation, to accept or reject as our will. But it is not.

    Yes, I'm sure there are lawns enacted on the right that do the same 'tests' as by the left. Just a whole heck of a lot less of them. By and large, conservatives consider constitutionality first.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Cruz is a condescending idiot no matter which way you slice it.
    March 15, 2013 9:07 am
    Your understanding of the whole basis of the 'progressive' movement leaves much to be desired. Tired generalities notwithstanding, somebody should have told Cruz to read what the Supreme Court said regarding Second Amendment rights. Why would he be stupid or arrogant enough to use his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance a willfully ignorant statement about the bill violating the Second Amendment because it doesnt. Oh wait, it's because he's a conservative and he lives in a bubble where everything conservatives think is right on the money.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kato1967 wrote...
    shut up gay married idiot
    March 15, 2013 9:34 am
    Cruz was right on the mark. Feinstein deserves only contempt and condescension for her naked attempt to rape the constitution. I would encourage him to keep telling it like it is, no matter how much leftist jerks hate it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Did you even look in to what the Supreme Court says about
    March 15, 2013 9:38 am
    the Second Amendment? Nooooo, because if you had you would know something that the less than stupid people know. That beacon of liberalism that is Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the DC v. Heller majority opinion that, "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    How many Guns knifes and Bazooka's and fully auto matics are owned by law abiding American citizens

    vs

    March 15, 2013 6:13 am
    how many murders are committed by those legal gun owners?

    The numbers DO NOT add up to the "Blood Bath" predicted by Liberals. Not even close!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }