Liberal Senator Says She Wants To Avoid ‘Constitutional Arguments’ During Hearing

[SecularMotion]

Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski said at a Senate hearing Wednesday that she wanted to avoid getting “involved in constitutional arguments.” The only problem is that the hearing in question dealt with President Obama’s recent executive actions on guns, which many believe infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“I look forward to…listening to the attorney general and listening to this wonderful panel that you’ve invited to participate today,” Mikulski, a Democrat and ardent supporter of gun control, said in her opening remarks ahead of a Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing, which heard testimony from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Earlier this month, Obama announced that his administration will force more gun sellers — even low-volume sellers — to obtain licenses and to conduct background checks. The initiative, which was developed in part by Lynch, expands the category of gun sellers considered to be “in the business” of selling firearms.

Lynch said that she has “complete confidence that the common sense steps announced by the president are lawful.” She called Obama’s actions “well-reasoned measures” which are “well within existing legal authorities, built on work that’s already underway.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/20/liberal-senator-says-she-wants-to-avoid-constitutional-arguments-during-hearing-on-obamas-executive-gun-action/

[Duckhunter935]

1. the dailycaller?

What's with the right wing source?

[Eleanors38]

2. Surprised you posted this unflattering stance by Mikulski, but so be it.

[DonP]

3. That nasty, nasty Constitution!

Keep it away from her, the mere sight might make her melt, like a splash of water on the Wicked Witch of the West.

Next thing you know, they'll want to let that low down Bill of Rights in too.

[beevul]

5. "Lets talk about what I'm proposing..."

"Lets talk about what I'm proposing..."

"Lets not talk about whether I'm actually authorized to do so, and lets definitely not talk about it if what I'm proposing is forbidden".

[gejohnston]

4. I don't know if I should be sad or glad that Beck's rag

reported this as poorly as everyone else other than gun blogs. But then, it isn't like he is going to attract a higher quality of journalist than anyone else.
It doesn't expand anything, it simply copied and pasted current law since 1986. If you buy a gun and "flip it", you are in the business. that is what the law has said for nearly 30 years even though few people may have not been aware of it. Maybe that is the important part, it is a little known provision so perhaps that education is important. It reminds me of another little known law.
Every now and then, I hear old timers, really old timers, talk about the good old days when they could send handguns through USPS. Little did they seem to know that they were violating the little known Mailing of Firearms Act, aka the Miller Act, that was signed by Calvin Coolidge in 1927.

If the EAs are no big deal, why is the NRA and Republican politicians blowing them out of proportion you ask? To paraphrase a line from Spaceballs
Fund raising, Fund raising, Fund raising, Fund raising, Fund raising, Fund raising

[Puha Ekapi]

6. Well done, SM, well done...

....from the bottom of my heart, thank YOU for showing how the controllers hate the constitution and can't stand the fact that it is an obstacle to their stripping a civil right away.

[virginia mountainman]

7. This is why we win..

Thanks!

[jmg257]

8. Well that's nice of her.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

"The founders decided to require an oath for federal and state officials—absent a religious test—in the Constitution, but the specifics—such as the wording of the oath—were left to the First Congress (1789–1791). In its first act, Congress specified the wording: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”


Seems constitutionality of any measure, well-reasoned or otherwise, should be argued.