Saturday, April 2, 2011

Senator Rand Paul Rocks!

by the Left Coast Rebel

Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky is impressing me more by the day. A recent incident (Thursday of this week) in the bowels of the United States upper chamber of Congress highlight Senator Paul's willingness to call out leadership on both sides of the aisle for lack of adherence to principles (or not having any principles, whatsoever).

Having said that, Harry Reid is an easy target on the Libya war issue and the National Review, has the story:
Washington — Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a Tea Party favorite, has boxed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) into a corner. After a quiet day of quorum calls and speeches, Reid abruptly adjourned the upper chamber Thursday and postponed votes until Monday. According to numerous Hill staffers, Paul deserves some credit for the impasse.

Here’s the back story: On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”

To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have 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.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure. (Continue Reading)
I wish we had video of the incident above but Rand Paul's comments on the Senate floor the day before will do just fine:

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr, cross posted to LCR.


  1. So, Paul said, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack..."

    First off, Obama DID NOT act unilaterally, and secondly, he did have treaties and congressional approval that made those treaties enforceable. Congress did advise the UN to act, the UN did, the French, Brits and we attacked Khadaffi, and now NATO is continuing the process. We have treaties and law here. Paul is wrong. If he doesn't like it, then strike that sneaky little double-entendre "unilateral" word out of his language and argue against the dozens of laws and precedents that have enabled the full-time "Commander in Chief" (a term that should ONLY be used for a President at Constitutional war).

    But even then, Paul's argument is weak. We have constitutional treaty obligations too. Those are laws - passed by the congress, signed by the president. And then congress acts through those treaties to enable executive action, but without the political consequences. It is a Machiavellian way dealing with constitutional war powers.

    But you know all that. So then? Go find yourselves a libertarian lawyer who can do the litigation? The law, as it is now, is not on your side.

    By the way, I actually agree with you and Paul on most of your positions in this matter. I just think Paul is approaching it the wrong way. If I knew a way, I'd be a famous thinker! It's a sticky wicket. Paul has to think this through. So far, he's just wading out into controversy and not substantively addressing the issues.


  2. JMJ - I get all the War Powers Act bulls*it that allows a president to essentially take unilateral action for 60 days without the "advise and consent of the Senate."

    So, work to get rid of the War Powers Act that in and of itself is of questionable constitutionality IMHO. But I ain't a million dollar lawyer forking for the executive branch so what do I know.

    Go after the War Powers Act on constitutional grounds, stand by the non interventionist principal, and BE CONSISTENT!

  3. I'm not a famous thinker either, BUT, I was under the impression that the Constitution is not changed by a simple majority of congress critters, but rather had to be amended via state ratification.
    I'm beginning to wonder if DC lawyers/politicians could indeed squeeze blood out of a turnip...

  4. Anon - I do believe that just might make two of us. A far cry from the statists thast seem to hold a majority.

    Whether it be Democratic or Republican.

    Funny how both parities essentially arrive at the same convergent point at the end of the day.

    Just wondering why that might be.
    Could it support the hypothesis of many that there is really no difference beteween the two major parties?

    Just askin.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.