Filibusters – Serendipitous Teaching Times –Nuked By The Dems
November 29, 2013 Leave a comment
Below are some significant Constitutional concerns broached by Sen. Rand Paul during his 13-hour filibuster speech. Excerpts from a Cato Institute Commentary by Nat Hentoff, the article appeared on Cato.org on March 19, 2013:
“And despite the tremendous national impact of Sen. Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster speech, how much of its startling details even registered for long? Meanwhile, the Republican from Kentucky was teaching many of us what we never realized — on just how subservient we are becoming to the state.
As I wrote last week, Paul said he was concerned that Americans targeted for suspected terrorist ties would be destroyed in America itself. He revealed in an editorial in The Washington Times: “The president said, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might’ ” (“Rising in defense of the Constitution,” Rand Paul, Washington Times, March 8).
I have a complete transcript of Paul’s 13-hour speech, including his follow-up to this presidential contempt for the separation of powers: “What if the president were to say, ‘I haven’t broken the First Amendment yet; I intend to follow it, but I might break it.’
”Later, Paul said: “Presidents, Republican and Democrats, believing in some sort of inherent power that’s not listed anywhere … For a hundred years or so, power’s been gravitating to the president — and the executive branch.”
And dig this from Rand Paul: “One of the complaints that you hear a lot of times in the media is about there is no bipartisanship in Congress. (But) if you look at people who don’t really believe in much restraint of government as far as civil liberties, it really is on both sides.”
Regarding Obamacare, a huge thorn in our side:
“When we passed Obamacare, it was 2,000-some-odd pages. There have been 9,000 pages of regulations written since. Obamacare had 1,800 references that the Secretary of Health shall decide at a later date. We (the people) gave up that power. We gave up power that should have been ours, that should have been written into the legislation. We gave up that power to the executive branch … many of whom we call bureaucrats, unelected.”
Perhaps you remember this from a congressman to Paul during his 13-hour speech: “They say the United States is the battlefield (against terrorism) now … This battlefield being here at home means you don’t get due process at home … Is that what we’re moving toward?”
Paul got more penetratingly specific: “The question is, if the government is going to decide who are sympathizers (with terrorists), and people who are politicians with no checks and balances are to decide who is a sympathizer, is there a danger really that people who have political dissent could be included in this?” (emphasis mine)
With the help (?) of the IRS’ Lois Lerner we now know the answer to this question.
You can hear more of Rand’s Consititutional concerns, including Obama’s flippant attitude to the droning of Americans, for yourself:
What is the point of our democracy if one person ramrods arbitrary laws and rules with demagoguery down the throats of Americans? And, Obama has told us that he is doing so at the whim of “fundamentally transforming the nation.” Shouldn’t “we the people” be involved in deciding what “transformation” takes place?
Obama’s antinomianism is a characteristic of the moral relativists of the Left who pronounce “the ends justify the means.” The ends do NOT justify the means and especially when the means and the ends are tyrannically enforced on unknowing and unwilling Americans.
Moreover, Obama knows that he has no fully justifiable legal, moral and intellectual grounds for doing what he does apart from Congress and “we the people.” He is a maverick greater than any McCain. He is a loose cannon. (from my comment to Legal Insurrection’s post “An increasingly dangerous presidency” by William A. Jacobson)