The (Brilliant) Rand Paul Amendment

Rand Paul really gets it.  He is offering a short and sweet amendment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution on Syria.  And it brilliantly cuts right to the heart of the matter, in part by quoting . . . Obama.

The amendment quotes from a response Obama gave the Boston Globe back in 2007 as a Senator, in which Obama said that “the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Paul’s amendment then provides constitutional backing for Obama’s statement—and finally declares that “it is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria."

Puleeease let there be a vote on this!  1. It’s right.  2. Those who are o.k. with Obama as dictator will have to come out and vote accordingly.

And, yes, 3. Congress throwing Obama’s words at Obama would be delicious!

You can see the amendment for yourself here.

Rand Paul Gets It

Yesterday morning I noted that Obama has left the door wide open to attacking Syria even without Congressional authorization.  Yesterday afternoon, I was heartened to see Rand Paul has noticed as well, and he gave Secretary of State Kerry not a little heat about it:

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Madison was very explicit, when he wrote the Federalist papers, he wrote that history supposes, or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates is that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the constitution vested that power in the Congress. It is explicit throughout all of Madison's writings. This power is a Congressional power and it is not an executive power. They didn't say big war, small war. They didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. They said declare war.



Ask the people on the ships launching the missiles if they are involved in war or not.

If we do not say that the constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. You're making us into theater. We play constitutional theater for the president. If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress. You're probably going to win. Just say it is real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and say, 'oh well, we had the authority anyway, we're going to go ahead and go to war anyway.'

I Endorse Rand Paul for President

I’ve been thinking about making this early endorsement for president for months.  And the NSA revelations have now pushed me over.  Right here, right now, I endorse Rand Paul for President of the United States in the 2016 elections.

Why?  And why so very early?

1. Rand Paul is the only major candidate who has demonstrated that he has the will and the backbone to stop and reverse federal tyranny, particularly the Big Brother surveillance state.  There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but he will certainly try and will at least slow the march to the gulag.  I cannot say that with confidence about any other candidate.

2. His filibuster against killing U. S. citizens with drones demonstrated presidential qualities, including strength of will, strong principles, and the ability to speak winsomely (and without gaffes) even when under considerable physical stress.  Those qualities will serve him well as a candidate and as President.

3.  Far more than any other Republican candidate, he has the ability to attract people, particularly young people, who haven’t voted Republican in years if ever.  For example, many left of center people with libertarian streaks who oppose the surveillance state will find Paul their only decent choice.  (Hillary put the feds in their place?  Are you kidding?)  He will therefore at least pull even in the youth vote and siphon off some Lefties, too.

4. With the excesses of federal power coming out for all to see – from the IRS, the NSA, the DOJ etc. etc. etc. – now is the time for an anti-statist libertarian conservative like Paul.  His convictions are both needed and politically timely.

5.  I’ve yet to be impressed by anybody else, with the possible exception of Paul Ryan.  As for Rubio, he is too young and naïve, to be blunt, and comes across that way.  That callowness is a big reason he is playing the fool on immigration.  He may be an excellent candidate one day, maybe, but not now.

I am glad to be supporting the candidate who I think is both best on policy and the most electable.  I not only endorse Rand Paul; I am about as confident about him winning as one can reasonably be this far out from an election.

By the way, I did *not* support Rand Paul’s father in 2012.  So don’t even think about writing me off as a Paulista.

Drones – Bigger (and Smaller) Than You Think

Early on during Rand Paul’s filibuster, I posted the following:

I think the Rand Paul filibuster now in progress may become a seminal moment in American politics.  And that not only because it is an actual old-fashion talking filibuster not seen in years.  There aren’t many issues on which Americans are united, but domestic drones is one such issue.  Left, right, or in between, people do not want drones flying over their houses.

And I think drones are becoming a big issue.  And, yes, it actually does cross party and ideological lines. One of many examples: I never thought the day would come when I would quote Sen. Pat Leahy (D-People’s Republic of Vermont) favorably, but he has said, “While there may be many valuable uses for this new technology, the use of unmanned aircraft raises serious concerns about the impact on the constitutional and privacy rights of American citizens.”

Bill Straub has written the best summary I've seen of the issues surrounding domestic drones.  Drones are both interesting (mosquito-sized drones?!?) and useful.  But I and many Americans do not want their properties spied on by them.  One poll even has almost half of Americans thinking they have the right to shoot drones flying over their properties without their permission.

I’m not ready to shoot one quite yet.  But I am ready to raise hell if I see one flying over my property.  And I am far from alone.

The Rand Paul filibuster is only the beginning of domestic drones as a big political issue.  I predict they will be a big issue in the 2016 presidential election.

The Rand Paul Filibuster - Democrats Block Anti-Drone Resolution

An important episode yesterday in Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster is not getting much attention.  So I will do my part to remedy that.

Sen. Rand Paul just offered to end his filibuster and allow a vote on CIA nominee John Brennan if he could get a vote tomorrow on a non-binding resolution regarding drone killing of US citizens on US soil. But Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin objected to allowing a vote on the resolution. So Paul resumed speaking.



Paul's resolution said it was the sense of the Senate that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights" of due process.

I mentioned yesterday that opposition to domestic drone excesses crosses party and ideological lines.  And support for Sen. Paul’s filibuster did come from scattered lefty sources including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Van Jones, and even Code Pink.

But that does not change the big picture about Democrats.  Most Democrat politicians don’t give a . . . don’t care about the Constitution and about your Constitutional rights. 

Dick Durbin’s objection is yet another instance of that.

The Rand Paul Filibuster: Becoming an American Hero UPDATED

Just a note to say I think the Rand Paul filibuster now in progress may become a seminal moment in American politics.  And that not only because it is an actual old-fashion talking filibuster not seen in years.  There aren’t many issues on which Americans are united, but domestic drones is one such issue.  Left, right, or in between, people do not want drones flying over their houses.

Sen. Paul is grabbing this issue and running with it like nobody else.  And it is good policy, defending Constitutional freedoms, and it is good politics as well.  In short, by combating and in effect filibustering domestic drones*, Rand Paul is becoming an American hero.

You heard it here first.

(*Yes, the presenting issue is the Brennan nomination.  But the real issue of the Paul filibuster is domestic drones and their potential abuse.)

UPDATE:

Sen. Mike Lee has joined the filibuster.  ‘Cause even heroes need their potty breaks.

UPDATE 2:

Now Sen. Ted Cruz is joining the filibuster, too!  I thank God he’s my senator!