A Senator’s Confusion

Several posts below I criticized Sen. Diane Feinstein because, among reasons, she thought it was improper, or at least unfortunate, that “the Rehnquist court had used the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment” to block Congressional projects she favored. The Constitution, in her view, should not be used for such things.

Along the way I also noted her statement that she thought she had a “special role and a special obligation” is grilling John Roberts about abortion.

Now Sen. Feinstein has gone even farther down that road, so far that I believe she has lost sight of whom she represents.

“As the only woman on the committee, I have an additional role to play in representing the views and concerns of 145 million American women during this hearing process,” Feinstein said in speech Wednesday in Los Angeles.

Last time I looked, the Constitution (at least when it is used) provides that each state shall elect two senators. Nowhere does it provide for women senators or representatives to have any “special role and special obligation” to represent the views of women.

If Sen. Feinstein think’s that is her charter, then the men of California are not getting the representation they deserve, and the women are getting more. Moreover, if Sen. Feinstein’s theory of representation were to be taken seriously, then Jews, with 11 senators (11% of the total) are seriously overrepresented, while the non-Jewish population of California is totally unrepresented in the Senate, since both Feinstein and Boxer are Jewish.

One nice solution to this problem would be for the people of California (or at least the non-Jewish, non-female people of California) to retire both Sens. Feinstein and Sen. Boxer at the next opportunity.

Say What? (8)

  1. Michelle Dulak Thomson August 25, 2005 at 4:51 pm | | Reply

    I confess that I don’t understand what Sen. Feinstein means exactly about the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    She said the Rehnquist court had used the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to weaken or invalidate at least three dozen federal laws in the last decade. She said those included the Violence Against Women Act and the Brady handgun law.

    She described those two constitutional provisions as the “the primary sources of congressional power” to enact social policy.

    But what she is actually saying, unless I misunderstand badly, is that the Commerce Clause ought to be read so as to allow the Federal Government to regulate essentially anything that can’t be construed as expressive activity, and maybe some of that too; whereas the Fourteenth Amendment ought to be held to forbid Government rewarding or punishing people on racial grounds — except, of course, where it shouldn’t.

    How is it that the Court has “used” the two provisions she mentions to take away the powers she says the same clauses grant?

  2. Cicero August 26, 2005 at 5:38 am | | Reply

    What about left-handed Filipinos? Who will represent them in California??

  3. Cicero August 26, 2005 at 5:41 am | | Reply

    What about left-handed Filipinos? Who will represent THEM in California??

  4. Anita August 26, 2005 at 11:59 am | | Reply

    Feinstein’s comment that in supporting abortion, she’s speaking for all women doesn’t make sense given that so many women are against abortion. She obviously is not speaking for evangelicals or fundamentalist christians or muslims. Someone should point out to her that many, if not most, non christian non white non western peoples are against aborton. That’s a nice dilemma for a liberal. How to avoid disagreeing with a “minority” and still support abortion!

  5. just me August 26, 2005 at 1:40 pm | | Reply

    Not only is her statement silly, but if taken seriously, it would be a good reason (aside from the many other ones) for men to vote against Feinstein. If she says to them, “I won’t represent your interests, but will cover the interests of women in other states instead,” then it is perfectly rational for them to vote against her.

    I hope she plays this up in her campaign speeches: “And to the men here, I want to make clear: I will not represent you . . .”

  6. john August 26, 2005 at 5:09 pm | | Reply

    Anita makes the best point: Many, if not most women oppose abortion. If this were not the case, Roe would be unneeded, because women comprise a majority in pretty much every state but Alaska.

    As such, Ms. Feinstein is either being presumptuous or disengenuous, given that her views differ from many, if not most, of her claimed “constituency”.

  7. M. Alazar August 27, 2005 at 2:25 am | | Reply

    As one of the Jewish, female voters of California, I am affronted beyond belief by Feinstein’s casual assumption–and yours!–that she represents me.

  8. Jon Temple April 28, 2006 at 10:29 am | | Reply

    I have never seem in my 53 years as much anti-semetic trash about from non-Jews, but also from those who have joined the “politically correct” club to are self-hating Jews. It is both side and amazing. But I would like to reveal the truth.

    All Jews like me work secretly, we all know each other and are always conspiring and DO control all of the money flow in the world. Yes, we killed Jesus and even though no Jew is CEO of any major or close to major Corporation ot financial institution, we control the banking field as well.

    Even though, statistically, the is a very small minority of Jews in all of Congress, we control it anyway !! You are right to fear the REAL control that is going on.

    Even though the number of Jews in the world make the Jews a statistical non-entity, an estimsted 0.227% of the world, about a total of 14 million. Anyone who is Jewish, who has an opinion are speaks should be looked at with suspicion because even though we are a pathetic 0.227, have no political power, having a sprinkling of a few Jews in the Congress, have no ownership or are CEO’s and any major Corpopration or Financial institution, have a esitmated whopping 5.9 million Jewis in the U.S., about 2%, the majority in New York City and a few in California, and have a whopping 5.4 million in tiny Israel, which is 80 % Jewish, we control EVERYTHING.

    I think on Fox it was mentioned that we spoiled Christmas last year. We can do it all.

    Jon

Say What?