McCarthy to Rand Paul: Leave the Constitution Alone
As usual, the Founders got it right. Andy quotes Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 23:
it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite; and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.
Senator Paul and his supporters claim to want to impose limits on presidential power. The way to do that, as Andy points out, is through Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, not by mucking about with the Constitution. When and if the world is rid of the terrorist threat, that authorization may be limited or even repealed. We’re a long way from that situation now, alas, as the headlines remind us every few days.
As I say, Rand Paul’s performance was good theater. But it had nothing to teach us about limiting presidential power. What it did tell us, however, was that Rand Paul is pretty clever in creating a national stage for himself. Everyone knows who he is now, which I suspect is exactly what he wants. Why? 2016, of course. It was a pretty cynical maneuver, I think, but politics is not exactly an purist’s pursuit. Rand Paul may have — doubtless does have — many virtues. I would have preferred a less demagogic approach.
Would the last writer here who is NOT trying to land a job with the MSM please turn out the lights? PJM...well, it was a nice idea for an alternative non-MSM sucking web site...too bad it turned out to just be more of the same.
I think you and Andrew miss the point entirely. This is not about some unreasonable and ahistorical reading of the due process clause. This is not about re-interpreting the laws of war. This was about bringing the Obama administration to heel politically.
It was a superb exercise in political showmanship calling attention to the fundamental lawlessness of this administration, its simultaneous unwillingness and inability to recognize any limits on its power, outside of those imposed by political feasibility. I'm glad that you and Andrew were forthright in your opposition to the use of our armed forces against American citizens within the United States. That's quite generous of you two. Why did it take the Attorney General and the President so long to say the same thing? You know the answer: because Obama does not recognize any such limits on his power. You might want to write an essay on that.
Incidentally, while Andrew may have the better legal argument on due process, I do not approve of his limitless expansion of the category of unlawful or enemy combatant being whoever the President, acting as Commander in Chief, declares. Moreover, the AUMF simply does not reach as far as you and Andrew believe. And amending it is not out of reach, we are only one national security crisis away.
(I should also mention that it has had a bracing effect on the GOP, which is sorely in need of a morale boost. By the way, the accusation of demagogy is misplaced and unsupportable. But if we wish to stretch the term to reach Rand's performance, I say let us have more of it.)
So Roger Kimball took 700 words to say -- what? That he likes Andrew McCarthy. And of the thousands of words spilled by Andrew McCarthy? Nothing conclusive or dispositive, other than he doesn't care much for Rand Paul.
This is the first time in four years that a GOP senator has grabbed the spotlight in order to push back against Obama. This piece is pathetic, Kimball. I read your latest book and don't recognize its author in this pabulum.
Roger, move to the side - you know, next to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Reince Prebus, Bill Kristol, and Karl Rove - and let the people who know how and are willing take on this president. It's apparent you and the rest of "republican intelligentsia" are unwilling to do so. What's the matter, afraid of being called extreme or **gasp** racist?
Paul's message was a confrontation of an Executive that would dearly love to accrue all power unto itself, which I think was exactly why it took Eric Holder so long, earlier that morning in a committee appearance, to stop insisting on a "hypothetical" and finally come out (4th time asked the question) and tell Ted Cruz that "no, the president doesn't have the power to off Americans on American soil."
It was the challenge, any challenge, to the Obama administration that I appreciated from Rand Paul and the Senators who supported him on the floor of the Senate.
The unqualified question remains unanswered:
'Does the President have the authority to kill an American on American soil?'.
In the event, Obama, Holder and Co. will come up with some weasel-worded
justification for doing so, all the important parts of which will be classified.
Much more likely that DHS would be deploying in the US and I just can't wait for predictive analytics and fully autonomous drones to become mainstream. There's enough (paranoid) documentation out there of the perceived threat of right wing extremisim/terrorism to worry about pre-emptive use of this technology. Justified or not the collateral damage is not likely to be minimal.
Senator Paul hit a nerve. At what point did it change from government of the people to management of the people, and what are we going to do about it?
I recall Lindsey Graham doing this, too, only the concept was "unprecedented."