Ericlewis0's diary highlights DiFi's response to Ted Cruz's condescension at today's hearing.
On the one hand, she rightly rejects his condescension. On the other hand, she was wrong. Cruz asked:
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? (he asked similar questions about other Bill of Rights amendments.)After DiFi's response as quoted in Eric's diary,
Cruz asked again, "would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which are not?"This answer is incorrect in a materially troubling way. Of course, Congress can and does specify what books and speech are permitted -- e.g., libel, child pornography, government secrets, copyright and others. The problem with the pro-gun groups is that they think the Second Amendment is different: That unlike the first and fourth amendments, you can't limit gun ownership at all.
Feinstein replied: "The answer is obvious: no."
The Constitutional Law clearly provides that a legislature can limit a Constitutional right if the limit serves a Compelling State Interest.
Based on this, you can recognize the right to bear arms rights as a fundamental right (as the Supreme Court has), but still pass limits on that right if there is a "compelling state interest" (as there is in the case of libel, secrets etc.)
So Cruz was actually giving her a great opportunity to make the case that yes, every right in the Bill of Rights can and is limited if there is a Compelling State Interest.
And what more compelling state interest is there than reducing the chance that our children will be gunned down in school or that children will be gunned down in a mall, a movie theater or anyplace.
As Steve M. asks Can't anybody here play this game?