Rand Paul to GOP: It's Time to Move Beyond the Second Amendment

National Journal ^ | June 18, 2015 | Emma Roller

[2ndDivisionVet]

The senator from Kentucky continues to takes the road less traveled through the GOP primaries.

Sen. Rand Paul took a risk Thursday. Speaking to an audience of religious conservatives in the wake of a racially charged shooting in South Carolina, Paul delicately suggested that Republicans might want to start focusing on other parts of the Bill of Rights than the Second Amendment.

"Everybody is for the Second Amendment. All 55 candidates running for president are for the Second Amendment—on our side," Paul told the crowd. "But the thing is that a lot of young people, that might not be their primary issue."

Leaving room, even rhetorical room, to one's right—particularly on an issue as important to the Republican base as gun rights—is a gamble in the crowded 2016 GOP primary. But it's one very much in keeping with the Kentucky senator's campaign of almost-gonzo optimism, and it's the type of decision backed by Paul's personal conviction that his libertarian philosophy can unite traditional Republican voters with more independent-minded young people and minorities.

Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition summit, Paul's remarks also mentioned the Wednesday night shooting that killed nine black church congregants in Charleston, South Carolina.

"We had the shooting this morning in South Carolina. What kind of person goes in a church and shoots nine people? There's a sickness in our country. There's something terribly wrong, but it isn't going to be fixed by your government. It's people straying away, it's people not understanding where salvation comes from. And I think that if we understand that, we'll understand and have better expectations of what we get from our government."

Paul's discussion of the Second Amendment was only a snippet of a longer and broader speech, much of which focused on religious liberty and, in particular, Paul's efforts to defend Christians overseas. He touted an amendment in which he proposed to cut off foreign aid to countries that persecute Christians, and said it was a sign of Washington's disconnect from the country that it was voted down in committee by a wide margin.

The speech was sandwiched in between those of his Senate colleagues and fellow presidential contenders, Marco Rubio (who did not mention the Charleston shooting in his speech) and Ted Cruz (who spoke of the event and began his remarks with a moment of silence). As part of his quest to distinguish himself from his GOP competitors while not alienating base voters, Paul emphasized his record of visiting black communities in Washington, Baltimore, and Chicago.

Polling suggests Paul's gauge of young people's enthusiasm about guns is accurate. A 2013 Pew poll found that just 16 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds own a gun, compared to 24 percent of the total population. A 2013 Harvard University study found that young people are split in their opinion about the National Rifle Association.

But young people don't tend to vote in the Republican presidential primaries. At one point in the 2012 election, CBS found that white evangelicals made up half of Republican primary and caucus voters.

And therein lies Paul's big challenge: He's trying to win the White House by reaching well past the Republican base, but if he can't win over enough of the party's base in the primary, his general election aspirations will be over long before they ever begin.

[Bob434]

[[Move beyond the Second Amendment?

Then why not move beyond the First?]]

Exactly, there ought to be a law against libertarians opening their mouths in public- Since paul doesn’t believe I nthe second amendment, then I’m sure he wouldn’t object to a violation of his first amendment

[SoConPubbie]

Wow. This is the week for candidates to turn establishment on us. First Cruz with TPA now Paul. These guys think we will forget?

There is absolutely nothing Establishment about Ted Cruz. Nice try at lying about him though!

For all of you mis-informed, hopefully sincere conservatives, here is a spot-on explanation of TPA (Fast Track) as explained by Representative Trey Gowdy:

Gowdy, Scott: Trade Promotion Authority fears are unfounded By Rep. Trey Gowdy & Sen. Tim Scott International trade accounts for more than one in five jobs in South Carolina, and in the Upstate alone exports support more than 64,000 jobs. To put it simply, our state is a trading powerhouse.

Whether it’s exporting automobiles or agricultural products, producing tires and turbines or powering a manufacturing renaissance, our workers can compete with anyone, anywhere.

With 95 percent of the world’s customers — and 80 percent of its purchasing power — outside the United States, all South Carolina needs is a fair set of rules, the protection of intellectual property and access to markets. But the rest of the world — especially our competitors — knows this, too.

In an increasingly global economy, there is a race to determine who will write the rules and standards — there are 262 regional trade agreements in the world, and the U.S. is only party to 20 of them. After seven years of weak, directionless U.S. foreign policy, China has been eager to take advantage of the leadership void and has been desperate to strike trade agreements with countries.

For the sake of our workers, our manufacturers, our exporters and our economic stability moving forward, we must act smartly but decisively.

Under consideration in Congress right now is Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is not a trade agreement. It is the way we ensure that the administration is being transparent and responsive to the concerns of the American people for all trade talks.

TPA sets parameters the administration must negotiate under, and it ensures that the public will be able to read any trade agreement months before it is voted on by Congress. TPA is publicly available for every American to read at www.Congress.gov.

While in the past TPA has been called “fast-track,” this new, muscular version of TPA is designed very differently from past versions. It reins in presidential authority and places much needed oversight and scrutiny on any potential trade agreements.

Currently, without TPA, the U.S. trade representative, appointed by the president, can negotiate without any congressional oversight and does not have to share significant details of that process with anyone outside the administration.

We understand and agree with those who are wary of more overreach by the Obama administration. From Fast and Furious and the IRS targeting scandal to the secret waitlists at the VA and immigration executive orders, we have heard the voices of our constituents and fought executive overreach like few others have.

Those concerns are why TPA ensures that this and future administrations would be required to pursue 150 negotiating objectives specifically established by Congress, consult with and report to Congress on how negotiations are going, and provide an unprecedented level of transparency so the American public has months to read and review any potential agreements negotiated under the TPA.

If, and only if, the president meets these objectives, the agreement will receive an up or down vote in Congress, ensuring a good deal is protected from amendments seeking to kill it. On the other hand, if the president fails to meet them, then we can rescind Trade Promotion Authority.

We have also heard concerns about secrecy from folks across the Upstate. The good news is that TPA mandates any trade deal negotiated under it be made public months before any congressional vote on it. That means every constituent who wants to see everything in the text of the agreement can do so well before any votes.

Finally, this new and modernized version of TPA in no way endangers U.S. sovereignty; rather, it empowers Congress and the American people, not the president or the executive branch. The TPA bill specifically says that any provision of a trade agreement that conflicts with U.S. law, be it immigration, environmental regulations or labor rules, will have no effect, and that U.S. law will supersede any foreign law in a dispute.

Some organizations have conflated TPA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is a specific trade agreement currently under negotiation. We are continuing to monitor the TPP negotiations to ensure that TPP is in the best interest of South Carolina businesses and families. We have also expressed our concerns with TPP in committee hearings on Capitol Hill.

Trade Promotion Authority, if passed into law, will give us a clearer understanding of exactly how our trade representatives are handling the TPP negotiations. And if the U.S. trade representative reaches a final agreement on TPP, then the American people will have more time than ever before to review the proposal and provide input to their congressional representatives. Then Congress would still have to vote on the agreement. TPA in no way, shape or form approves the TPP trade partnership.

Trade Promotion Authority is not about empowering any president, this one or ones to come. Rather, it is about dictating the terms of trade negotiations beforehand, ensuring transparency in the process and providing months for our fellow citizens to read the text before it can be voted on. That’s why strong conservatives such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and the two of us support it.

Trey Gowdy represents the 4th Congressional District in the U.S. House, and Tim Scott is South Carolina’s junior U.S. senator.

[FreeInWV]

Yeah! We should just forget about all those other rights. Who needs em!

[Bob434]

[[First Cruz with TPA]]

I missed that- what did Cruz say on the tpa?

[Drew68]

So? Screw them, then.

No. Young people are not primarily concerned with gun rights because they don't feel they need to be. The battles over the Second Amendment have been won, is how they see it.

I'm in the military. I work with a lot of Millennials. Most of them don't own guns. Not because they don't want to but because they don't feel a compelling need right now to go and buy one. Their attitude is that guns will always be around and once they get caught up on their bills, maybe they'll pick one up.

Far different than it was for me when I was a 20-something during Bill Clinton's first administration. Back then, the mindset was "get one now before you can't!" and I did.

Millennials don't care so much about the Second Amendment because they don't see it as being threatened. They care about privacy and Senator Paul is speaking to them.

[dfwgator]

It’s not an either/or proposition, but those who think the Second Amendment isn’t important enough to value, probably don’t care a whole lot about the other ones.

[SoConPubbie]

Because I don’t buy into everything a candidate says, I have no idea? So 50 Repulicans that voted against it have no idea either?

No, simply because you are completely ignorant of what it does.

With or without TPA, the executive agreement that Obama is negotiating will go into affect because the Supreme Court has already ruled that these type of agreements are legal.

Without TPA, Obama has the constitutional right to go ahead and negotiate executive agreements(Not Trade Treaties) (TPP) with foreign countries WITHOUT any limitations whatsoever.

TPA protects the interests of American Citizens by limiting what the President can and cannot do during negotiations with foreign countries.

Obviously, you are clueless where the TPA is concerned, otherwise, you'd be rooting for it with all you have.

[SunkenCiv]

I was always a little timid about predicting this one, but had figured it was coming.

[Mollypitcher1]

He would do better to avoid appearing to pick and choose. I would suggest he bring out the battles that have been necessary to preserve the Second Amendment in most of the country. We cannot claim total victory as long as there are states like New York, California and others that continue to deprive their citizens of their Constitutional Rights. There have been battles and some victories, but there are still too many limitations and no reason for them.
Just this past week I wanted to take my 9 year old grandson to a shooting range with me together with my 12 year old granddaughter. My granddaughter was allowed, but my grandson can’t go until he is 12 years old also.
I learned to shoot at 5 year of age and was hunting with my father at 7. At 12 my father signed for my hunting license that allowed me to hunt alone without supervision.He had taught me gun safety and responsibility for my actions at an early age. Many on this website have also had a similar upbringing. Youth today are pampered wimps for the most part. We MUST teach them to be responsible again. Paul could tie the 2nd Amendment battle to ALL the other amendment battles if he crafted his speeches correctly. The single minded, single focus, single issue politicians have to be taught that most people are MULTI TASKERS and can think.
As I’ve said before, Paul is not my cup of ta....he has too much of his father in him.

[Mollypitcher1]

I have paid a LOT of attention to Ted Cruz and was a strong supporter for the past few YEARS. My support has been heavily tempered due to his recent choice and PLEASE don’t attempt to tell me what I should or should not think. I am known for having a mind of my own.

[SoConPubbie]

I have paid a LOT of attention to Ted Cruz and was a strong supporter for the past few YEARS. My support has been heavily tempered due to his recent choice and PLEASE don’t attempt to tell me what I should or should not think. I am known for having a mind of my own.

Then keep your mind closed to the truth!

[FreeInWV]

Nobody (including Paul) said the Second isn’t important. It is. But so are the rest.

Where was all the outrage over the general warrants used to arrest the 170 bikers in Waco? That’s a totalitarian tactic. Giving out unreasonable $1M bail for each is too. Both are explicitly forbidden in the BOR because the founders saw these happen and knew it needed explicitly spelled out in the BOR.

NSA violated your privacy lately?

What about the downtrodded in society that don’t get fair treatment in the legal system? Do those people deserve rights too?

You might be content to quietly caress your rifle and see your other rights wither away, but I am not. I am glad someone is talking about it finally. And engaging people who are concerned about their rights too.

And I am absolutely certain I have more guns than you.

[Mollypitcher1]

You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Look beyond your horizons.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Watch him start walking this back in the next few days.What an idiot.

[Mollypitcher1]

Besides, How did NAFTA work out? So now we go from TWO (Canada and Mexico) “partners” to ELEVEN in the Trans Pacific and European Agreements which comprise all together the overwhelming percentage of GDP WORLDWIDE! I DON’T
LIKE THE ODDS!!!!

[Mollypitcher1]

If we want to PROTECT our SOVEREIGNTY, we can negotiate INDIVIDUALLY with each country as we have always done. I DON’T LIKE CONGLOMERATES! Odd man out gets buried (with our own money!)

[SoConPubbie]

Besides, How did NAFTA work out? So now we go from TWO (Canada and Mexico) “partners” to ELEVEN in the Trans Pacific and European Agreements which comprise all together the overwhelming percentage of GDP WORLDWIDE! I DON’T LIKE THE ODDS!!!!

You really need to get informed on TPA, TPP, executive trade agreements, etc.

Obama already has the necessary constitutional rights to negotiate executive trade agreements (like TPP. TPP is not a treaty).

He will do it with or with out the TPA.

Those ELEVEN new partners you are worried about, are going to happen one way or another, The Supreme Court has already ruled that Presidents have the right to negotiate Executive Trade Agreements which is TPP.

The purpose of the TPA is to limit what Obama can negotiate, in effect, to control him. It is the only constitutional tool Congress really has to shape the Executive Trade Agreement A.K.A TPP.

Without the TPA can do all the bad things you can imagine. With the TPA, Congress can limit what he can do.

Finally, ALL the Democrats(Except Obama), ALL the unions, and ALL the progressive groups, including the Communists have lined up with you against the TPA. You're on the wrong side. It is time for you to find out where you have been mis-informed. You are being played!

[SoConPubbie]

If we want to PROTECT our SOVEREIGNTY, we can negotiate INDIVIDUALLY with each country as we have always done. I DON’T LIKE CONGLOMERATES! Odd man out gets buried (with our own money!)

Yes Obama can, but even without the TPA, he still has the constitutionally approved right to negotiate with those ELEVEN trading partners.

The only hope we have for controlling Obama is with the TPA.

[SoConPubbie]

You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Look beyond your horizons.

No, you are mis-informed.

YOu are working without all of the facts and are being fed mis-information.

[Mollypitcher1]

So fine, time will tell. I repeat What About NAFTA?