Sen. Feinstein Didn't Like Sen. Cruz's Questions About the Bill of Rights


Credit: United States Congress/wikicommons

During a hearing on the assault weapons ban in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which was approved along party lines) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had a few questions about the Bill of Rights for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who reminded the junior senator from Texas that she is not a sixth grader. 

Watch the video of the exchange below:

The automated transcript of the exchange is below via ABC news (I have added the names of Cruz and Feinstein to indicate who was speaking but have otherwise not altered the transcript):

Cruz: Seems to me that all of us should begin as our foundational document. With the constitution. And the Second Amendment in the bill of rights provides—the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The term the right of the people. When the framers included in the bill of rights they used it as a term of—that same phrase the right of the people is found in the First Amendment. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances it's also found in the Fourth Amendment the right of the people to be free.

From unreasonable searches and seizures. And and the question that I would pose. To the senior senator from California is which—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. Which she think that the fourth amendment's protection against such searches and seizures.

Could properly apply only to the following specified individuals. And not to the individuals. That congress is deemed.

Outside the protection of the—— he'll never question.

Feinstein: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One I'm not a sixth—Senator—been on this committee for twenty years.

I was a mayor for nine years I walked—I saw people shot I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons.—seen the bullets that implode. In in sandy hook youngsters were dismembered.

Look there are other weapons. I'd been up I'm I'm not a lawyer. But after twenty years I'd been up close and personal to the constitution.

I have great respect for. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision. Clearly points out three exceptions.

Two of which are pertinent here. And sell—You yet you know army is flying while lecture me on the constitution. I appreciated just know I've been here for a long time.

— passed on a number of bills a study the constitution myself—reasonably well educated. And I thank you for the lecture incidentally. This does not prohibit.

You used the word prohibit it exempts. 2271. Weapons.

Is—add enough for the people in the United States.—mr.—and need a bazooka.

Do they need. Other high powered weapons that military people used to kill in close combat I don't think so. So I come from a different place than you do.

I respect your views I ask you to respect my views. Senator—want to apologize to you he sort of got my dander up. And that happens on occasion. 

NEXT: Marine with Concealed Weapon Stops Woman's Beating

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Clearly we should ban “bullets that implode.”

    1. This right here exemplifies how mendacious and retarded this woman is. She’s been fighting against gun ownership for decades and I’ve seen nary a shred of evidence to suggest she understands anything about the functionality, usage, or technological specifications of any single firearm. She makes so many blunders if not bold-faced lies when she talks about guns that I can’t be sure that she’s been “reasonably educated” about anything.


        1. Credentialist…..


      2. Clearly, she needs some sixth-graders to explain it all to her.

    2. Clearly, we need to ban any gun capable of “dismembering children.” That means we should ban guns firing the .223 round, while hunting guns firing harmless rounds like the 12 gauge, .30-06, or .45-70 should remain legal.

      But after twenty years I’d been up close and personal to the constitution.
      – Much in the sense that Ted Bundy was up close and personal to sorority girls.

  2. Looks like ABC censored the transcript of the exchange. Did Feinstein say for example ‘I’m not a sixth-fucking-grader, sir!’

  3. Her answer should have been, “I don’t believe in the Second Amendment, Senator Cruz.”

    Honest and to the point.

    1. “Do they need. Other high powered weapons that military people used to kill in close combat I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do.”

      Almost the same

      1. So I come from a different place than you do.

        What does “shall not be infringed” mean where you come from?

        1. illiterate-ville?

      2. Technically the only time you would need to defend yourself is during close quarter combat.

        In nearly all cases if you are taking long range shots at people it probably is not self defense.

        1. At least you’d have a hell of a hard time convincing the jury that you shot a guy at 250 yards because you believed that you were in imminent mortal danger…

          1. But what if that guy had an assault weapon? Then what?

            1. I’d laugh and grab a scoped .30 caliber bolt gun.

              The idea that a .223 rifle is a long-range weapon or an ultra-powerful weapon, is just so stupid that only someone who votes for Feinstein could believe it.

              1. The .223 round was designed to be able to penetrate a helmet at 600 yards, and in an AR-15 it’s accurate enough to get the job done. The idea that you’re out of range because your 250 yards away is almost as fucking stupid as Feinstein.

                1. Depending on what kind of optics are used on it, it COULD be effective at 250+ yards. My buddy has a real nice scope on his that we shoot 200+ yards with great accuracy.

                  Mine, on the other hand has a simple red dot that is fantastic at 50 or so yards, but not so accurate at greater distances. I have a remington 700 for those distances.

                  1. The Marines qualify with their M4s and M16s at 500 yards, without optics.

                    1. Looks like I need more practice, then.

                    2. Oh darn, another excuse to go to the range.

                    3. Hope you have a lot of .223 on hand. Finding any in stock these days is like finding the Holy Grail.

                    4. My father-in-law and a few of my friends reload. Still fairly rare, but it’s easier to buy 2000 chunks of lead than actual rounds. Much much cheaper too.

                    5. Right. I can shoot a man-sized target at 500 yards with A2 sights, too. I practice.

                      If I’m facing a trained rifleman, that’s one thing. But from the broken frames, etc. at the range, I’m guessing that’s a small percentage of AR owners and a far, far smaller percentage of criminals.

                      Do you think Adam Lanza was a real threat at 250 yards, if someone who could shoot under 2″ at that distance had the crosshairs on his head? I don’t think so. And a round that will drop an elk will surely work, too.

                      I’m not saying an AR is ineffective. I’m saying that the question about “what if he had an assault weapon?” is fundamentally stupid. I’d be far more afraid of some guy in the mountains who eats what he shoots, and has a Feinstein-approved 7mm Rem Mag. “Assault weapons” are a made-up threat.

                2. Out of range? No.

                  The penetrator rounds can go through some helmets at 600 yards, for sure. That’s not what you get at Wal Mart.

                  But unless I’m facing a guy who really knows his stuff, I’m unlikely to have to deal with penetrator ammo, or a lot of hits. It’s not that easy to hit something taking cover at 600 yards if you aren’t pretty well practiced.

          2. Unless you’re a cop.

            1. When do cops have to face juries?

              1. It does rarely happen.

                The guys that murdered Kelly Thomas are being prosecuted for example.

        2. “Technically the only time you would need to defend yourself is during close quarter combat.”

          But, do you really need the same thing our military uses to defend themselves in that situation? You think you’re worth that much to the rest of society? Monster!

      3. She really is fucking ignorant. “Close Combat” usually means not shooting people with a rifle. Knives / bayonets, killing blows with a rifle, hand-to-hand, and pistols are typical.

        1. Hey, she’s seen things, mannn!!!

          1. She’s seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. She’s seen C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. Now all those moments will be lost, like tears in the rain.

        2. She really is fucking ignorant.

          That sums DiFi up nicely.

      4. Why does Barack need a fleet of drones?

        1. Well because the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes you need to be able to use force to defend your interests! Not YOU, mind you, but those of us in government, who are BETTER than you.

      5. also, BAZOOKA!

  4. The transcript makes them both sound like retarded robots.

    1. Yeah, I was imagining them being drunk while reading that.

    2. They are Senators, after all.

  5. She says “I’m not a sixth grader” and then goes on to spout a bunch of irrelevant stuff about having seen people shot and non-sense about bullets that implode. Clearly she’s actually a pre-schooler.

    1. When logic is against you, appeal to emotion.

      1. That’s her standard practice. She’s built a political career off of being in the same room as two famous politicians after they got shot, and in California that’s apparently enough to sway the voters even if she’s a blithering, hypersensitive idiot.

        1. that’s her standard practice. She’s built a political career off of being in the same room as two famous politicians after they got shot…

          Valedectorian from the Jesse Jackson School of professional victim cradling!

    2. I was thinking the same thing. It’s pretty typical for 6th-graders to succumb to appeals to emotion.

  6. The best and the brightest, huh?

    1. The scary thing is that she is undeniably brighter than that moron Boxer.

      1. My cat is brighter than Sen. Boxer.

        1. Ah, Barbara Boxer…the one who dressed down a general for not addressing her with what she felt was the proper amount of respect for her title.

  7. Let me just say:

    1. My son is in the sixth grade and knows far more about liberty than Sen. Feinstein. I would rather be represented by him and his friends than an evil pile of shit like you.

    2. 20 years is too fucking long to be a Senator, much less on the same liberty crushing committee.

    3. After you saw people shot, what did you do? Bought a gun and gave yourself a permit to carry. The same thing you seek to deny me.

    1. “3. After you saw people shot, what did you do? Bought a gun and gave yourself a permit to carry. The same thing you seek to deny me.”


        1. Why does she still need a gun?

          Hostess went out of business, hence, no more Twinkies. She’s out of danger.

      1. Yep. Schumer, too!

        1. So she may have dropped it when she got called out on it. Did she also get rid of her gun, and her security detail?

          1. And her arms dealing husband?

          2. I cited the article to show she had one. I don’t if she had or has a security detail. Most senators don’t.

          3. Yes. Now she just carries a small bottle of Clorox and a small bottle of ammonia per Law Enforcement instruction. Also, she keeps her colon full, ready to release, to discourage rapists. She will yell really loud, or use a metal whistle because that will sometimes scare away attackers. If none of that works, she will hide in a closet or under the bed and wait for the police to arrive.

            1. Too be fair, the only rape protection she needs is to look her attacker in the eyes, because not even STEVE SMITH could remain tumescent in the face of true bureaucratic E-VHUL.

              1. The cloud of caustic dust that billows from the leathery cave of horrors that was once her vagina is also very effective against attackers.

                1. You have a gift for imagery, SF… A vomit inducing gift, but a gift nonetheless.

                  1. I was thinking the same thing, itsnot…grah!

                    1. please don’t shorten my name like that. itsnot is too close to it’s snot. call me notme if you want to shorten it.

                2. Is that sort of like the blood clouds surrounding the Sierra Madre casino?

  8. I’m just thankful that someone so evil is also that stupid. Can you imagine the damage she could do if she had an IQ over 90?

    1. That’s an interesting thought exercise. I suppose it could even be made into a major motion picture.

      1. Sling Blade 2: Dianne’s Barely Understood Revenge

        1. Who will play her even dumber friend Barbara?

          1. Robert Pattinson

            1. I had to look him up – he does seem to have the same confused, vacant stare as Boxer.

        2. Dem chilluns dint deserve ta get shot an kilt. Dey was just lil’ fellers.

          1. +1 frinch fryd putater

            1. All right, then.

          2. For a moment I thought that was Simple Jack from Tropic Thunder

      2. Lets just make a movie about her now.

        Oscar Gold, a movie about a retarded Senator and former mayor whose favorite legislation gets voted down.

        Afterwards she is seen just dragging the bill tied to a string around the halls of Congress.

  9. DiFi vs Marilyn Chambers by Warren Hinckle in counterpunch. That’s all you ever need to know about DiFi’s understanding of the Bill of Rights. And apparently she has learned nothing since she was mayor of SF.

  10. For those of you who insist on believing in a benevolent, personal deity, allow me to offer the gentle reminder that DiFi will turn 80 this year and has yet to be struck down by cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, a stroke, bullets, lightning, a sinkhole, or neglecting to dedicate 80% of her rodent-powered cognitive capacity to the act of breathing.

    1. Based on her mental capacity, I wouldn’t be so quick to rule out stroke or Alzheimer’s.

    2. Skeletor has been dead for a decade, but for some reason she keeps walking around and winning elections.

    3. + 10 for the sinkhole reference

    4. I had never doubted my faith until this very moment.


    5. Yeah, but that’s the thing – giving people free will means they can use that free will to be controlling, evil, dumbasses.

    6. Well, only the good die young, so she’ll probably live forever.

  11. She knows what it says, Teddy. She just doesn’t give a shit.

  12. Since Feinstein seems to be unable to answer the question of whether exemptions apply to other amendments likes the 1st, I will modify her answer:

    You used the word prohibit. My bill exempts 2271 children’s books.

    Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need adult books? Do they need other literature that professional academics use? I don’t think so.

  13. She really thinks being a lifer mandarin ought to earn her some sort of praise, I only hope Cruz delivered a heap of the scorn she so deserves.

  14. I’ve read any number of verbatim depositions given by junior managers in complex corporate litigation matters where they sound more articulate than these two. Top. Men. and Women.

    1. To be fair, that transcript is pretty awful. Listen to the video.

      1. “Listen to the video.”

        My eye just doesn’t seem to be working quite right

  15. Diane cannot die soon enough.

    1. Maybe her head will implode.

      Vacuums can do that.

      1. It would be awesome if it just caved in on itself on C-SPAN.

  16. “so,… the bill of rights says….”

    ” ARK!! I’m old…. and you dont need a bazooka.. Me smart!”

  17. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had a few questions about the Bill of Rights for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who reminded the junior senator from Texas that she is not a sixth grader.

    She has the mental and emotional development of a pre-schooler – not a 6th grader.

    1. Needs moar tutoring.

  18. It was great there was this whole liberal outrage about US post offices getting sold and “rented out instead” (which is an asinine move, if you’re going to close them, close them – so yeah I’m with the liberals on this). The firm that gets to run the deal is CBRE – the mega commercial real-estate outfit which , which of course pays DiFi’s husband to be on it’s board…

    1. sorry he’s chairman of it’s board

      1. He’s worth every dollar.

  19. I’ve been on this committee for twenty years. I don’t need your 100 year old scrap of paper

  20. Always with the fucking bazooka example.

    Nukes and bazookas. That’s why we cant’ have a pistol cartridge with more than 8 rounds. WTF

    1. Well, one follows from the other.

      Premise 1: I’ve seen bullets implode.

      Premise 2: Bazookas.

      Conclusion: No magazines with more than 8 rounds and universal registration.

      Aristotle would be proud.

  21. Shorter Feinstein: “I’ve been in the Senate for 20 years, how dare you lecture me on that very old irrelevant document written by racist slave owners, you little teabagger upstart!”

    Shorter Curz: “Fuck off, slaver.”

  22. I’m not a 6th grader. I’m smart. I have experience. I have TOP MEN behind me nodding in agreement. I’m important. Now pay attention while I tell anecdotal stories and avoid directly answering your question. Bazookas. Now my dander is up.

    Palm, switch, ditch, steal, load, simulation, misdirection.

  23. I voted for Gary Johnson, Bitch!

  24. Exempts 2271 weapons. That which is not explicitly permitted is prohibited.

    1. Better get in line…2271 won’t last long

    2. The think that pisses me off about the 2271 list is that many of them wouldn’t be affected by the ban in the first place.

      It’d be like enacting a ban on sports cars buy “exempting” a bunch of cargo vans and school busses.

      1. And she’s a fucking lawyer. She made a point of telling us that.

        1. Which makes me wonder why anyone would want a lawyer as a lawmaker. Lawyers, by trade, manipulate the law to get the best outcome for their client. Why would we want professional law weasels creating those laws. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

          1. It would be OK if they remembered who their clients were.

            1. Big oil and the banks. C’mon, don’t you read the news. /sarc

          2. I have posited this exact point to a few leftist friends I have on multiple occasions. If you look at the ratio of lawyers that are D politicians you would be amazed.
            I asked them who would they want in control of government a lawyer or a citizen of another profession and every one of them responded Lawyer.
            With my face in palm and head shaking and ask them why. The typical response is that they understand the law and the typical layman does not.
            So to them it is the best option for government to be staffed by the very same people who make truckloads of cash off of the very laws and regs they create. INSANITY

        2. Actually she pointed out that she wasn’t, buttttttttttt, she has 20 years of government experience so…Respeck ma authoriteh!

  25. Don’t go bragging about that nine years as mayor, sweetie. Everyone knows you were elected to office by Dan White.

  26. God what a cunt.

    I know, I know, that’s why we don’t have nice things.

  27. When Sen. Cruz was given a chance to speak again, he indicated that the senator from California did not answer his question at all, to which Sen. Feinstein replied with a “NO”. Right after, Sen. Dick Dist-Durbin-g responded to Cruz’s line of questioning by reminding everybody that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Yeah, that places the decree “Congress shall make no law” in a totally different context, doesn’t it? Turns it into a mere suggestion, according to Mr. Dist-Durbin-g.

    1. Sen. Dick Dist-Durbin-g responded to Cruz’s line of questioning by reminding everybody that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not absolute

      Unlike the right to an abortion, which I suspect he and Dianne will insist is absolute.

  28. “I don’t got to answer no stinkin questions about the Bill of Rights, I’ve been bending it longer than you have.”

    1. “I was shitting on the constitution while you were still popping your own diapers!”

  29. I disagree with the decision of Feinstein’s parents to conceive.

  30. Feinstein needs to be continuously lectured about the constitution until it can be demonstrated that she is even functionally competent with the document. She is easily one of the top 10 absolute worst members of congress as it relates to issues of freedom, liberty and government intrusion.

  31. What is most frustrating about this is the Senator from California fails to answer the question in even a trivial sense by indulging in a bit of emotionalism.
    The question posed to her is at the heart of why she is wrong, and she knows damn well that there is no effectual counter argument to it. Namely, the Constitution states plainly that the government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, the supreme court has confirmed what anyone who can read and has a shred of intellectual honesty already knew – this right applies to people and not to members of government. Finally, allowing the government to decide who rights apply to and who does not qualify defeats the letter and spirit of our entire system of government. Weapons are allowed for self defense from criminals including representatives of a tyrannical government and as a line of defense from foreign invaders (an armed populace fighting a guerrilla war is a nearly undefeatable opponent)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.