Posted on 03/09/2013 5:03:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The MSM are mostly covering Senator Paul as a nut. The state media continues to do Obama’s bidding. That a US Senator questioning the Kenyan POTUS’s dismissal of fifth and sixth amendment rights should be treated this way in a “free press” can mean only one thing...the press is no longer free.
The media caved in ‘07 when they refused to look into Obama’s early life, his college records, birth story, and upbringing in Indonesia. They still refuse to cover any story, in detail, if it might do harm to the Obama regime.
Bob Woodward is just the tip of the iceburg...there must be lots of lesser lights in the MSM who cower in fear...as Obama holds the IRS and other governmental agencies over their heads.
Will anyone talk?
We are at “war paradigm.”
Rand Paul’s 13 hour diatribe was wonderful. He brought up many more conservative points than just the use of drones at home.
Keep it up senator. I will vote for you against Hillary.
This is nice - just like when all the liberal pundits were correcting those liberal politicians who accused Bush and Cheney of over stepping their Constitutional bounds fighting the WOT...I hope to hell we see more filibusters out of the new guys and maybe ruin another dinner between Obungo, McCain and Linda
McCarthy is a good man, but there is too much fussing over small-print technicalities in his arguments — to the detriment of the Big Picture.
When governments merely PREPARE to kill their own citizens its time for dramatic action. Lurking somewhere in the current scenario is a last step that turns a president Obama into a Lincoln or Stalin or Mao or Saddam — perfectly willing to target entire segments of his own population for slaughter.
I’m all for “national security,” and I’m NOT a libertarian under even the loosest definition, but I’m with Rand Paul on this one. The idea of missile-toting, remote-controlled drones hovering above me and controlled by Big Brother can’t possibly be Constitutional, lest what good is the Constitution to me?
I am a Rand Paul fan.
But I have a question about how far he would, or would not, go with his analysis.
Suppose United 175 had been taken over 200 miles west of where it actually happened. Then suppose that by the time it arrived over NJ, we already had combat air patrol in place.
Suppose then that the hijacker pilot did not respond to standard warnings and had the South Tower lined up.
Does Senator Paul believe that a Presidential order to destroy the plane and all the US citizens on board would have been constitutional?
Andrew misses the most likely scenario: A militia group in paramilitary training in the woods killed by drone as enemies of the state preparing for warfare.
Count on it.
another thing that McCarthy is missing here is the very important political point: Rand showed that Obama can be attacked successfully, and that standing up to him is the thing to do. Our prissy establishment has created this monster of “likeability” - and now they cower from that very thing. I normally like McCarthy, but he missed on this one.
“having occurred exactly zero times in the 20 years since jihadists commenced hostilities by bombing the World Trade Center”
The claim of that power occurred exactly zero times in the 200+ years since this country was founded. Then Holder said what amounted to “stroke of a pen, death of a citizen - pretty cool.”
The claim also extends far beyond “jihadists” (who this administration seem oddly uninterested in).
Having to drag the DOJ head kicking and screaming into admitting “no we cannot kill an American citizen on American soil doing nothing harmful” is ... weird.
McCarthy is usually great, but he’s wrong on this one. The constitution protects the individual, period, from both the president and the Congress. That is, if the constitution is being followed and upheld by variouis federal officials.
What the author misses are three points:
1.) it is the Constitution that defines the boundaries that both the President and Congress have, and provides a means for one to overpower the other
2.) When there is a dispute for which neither has the will nor desire strong enough to override the other, but for which the action is contradictory to the Constitution, the USSC may be invited to step in, at which point the meaning of the Constitution is determined to govern
3.) in those rare instances when no. 2 above is deemed by the USSC to contradict the meaning of the Constitution, the will of both the President and Congress may be deemed unlawful or the Constitution may subsequently become amended. This normally takes a long time.
What the author misses are three points:
1.) it is the Constitution that defines the boundaries that both the President and Congress have, and provides a means for one to overpower the other
2.) When there is a dispute for which neither has the will nor desire strong enough to override the other, but for which the action is contradictory to the Constitution, the USSC may be invited to step in, at which point the meaning of the Constitution is determined to govern
3.) in those rare instances when no. 2 above is deemed by the USSC to contradict the meaning of the Constitution, the will of both the President and Congress may be deemed unlawful or the Constitution may subsequently become amended. This normally takes a long time.
Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy needs to put his spectacles on and read the Fifth Amendment. It is very clear the federal government cannot kill a United States citizen without due process of law. The President’s judgement or urge is not due process of law.
Mr. McCarthy states, “The Constitution enables the government to marshal all the might necessary, under any conceivable circumstances, to quell threats to the United States.” Under his interpretation, a President could define anyone who opposes his or her policies as a threat to the United States. If I actively or passively oppose a law passed by Congress, or a regulation issued by the President, why shouldn’t I be considered a threat to the United States, particularly if I attempt to organize other citizens to actively oppose the law. Wasn’t Martin Luther King a “threat to the United States?” He deliberately flouted and violated laws in a nonviolent fashion. Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder have openly and deliberately chosen not to enforce laws passed by Congress. Are they not “threats to the United States”?
The Fifth Amendment is clear. It reads, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The words are clear — “No person shall. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law. . .”.
With respect to the first part of the Fifth Amendment relating to answering to a crime in time of war, consider:
1) It specifically speaks to a capital or infamous crime. Plotting or minor crimes do not qualify.
2) It specifically speaks to a person in actual service (army, navy militia) in time of war or public danger. A citizen not enrolled in the armed forces is not “in actual service” and therefore cannot be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime without indictment (i.e. due process of law). In addition, the Amendment speaks to “time of War or public danger” with the word “War” capitalized and therefore implying a formal declaration of war. There has not been a formal declaration of war passed by Congress since the December 11, 1941 declaration of war against Germany. There is no declaration of war in effect today so the President has no authority to use the armed forces against US citizens or the citizens of any other nation.
Wrong. The Constitution is an absolute. Obama does not have the authority to murder a US citizen on US territory. That decision should not require a specific Act of Congress for its prevention. The president (or in Obama’s case, the Community Organizer in Chief) cannot take that action with or without the approval of Congress.
When Obama is President, this is not reassuring.
Exactly. There is zero guidance from the constitution on what is considered an official declaration of war. Technically if congress officially proclaims we are at war and votes to fund the proclamation, once signed by the president we are at war. This 10 plus year “War on Terror” is just the latest example.
Additionally, since we are in a state of war the congress has the constitutional authority under Article I section 8 to establish tribunals that are inferior to the supreme court for the purpose of dealing with piracy and other felonies.
McCarthy also seems to just glide on by the fact that this debate began concerning the use of drones. Drones are used in hostile nations because we have no other practical way to get at the terrorists who are a threat.
Within the US, we have almost limitless ways to get at any individual and group that might pose a threat. You really have to use a lot of imagination to come up with a scenario where the use of drones would be the only way to deal with a threat within the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.