Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Republicans fought hard to confirm Justice Gorsuch, and with good reason.The reason many of them gave the full strength of their support was because they believed Justice Gorsuch would follow the Constitution adhering to the original text and meaning. He is from a group of legal scholars who consider themselves Originalists.

While many Republicans fawned over this quality, they displayed remarkable cognitive dissonance when it came to applying it to a very public event the very day they approved the Gorsuch nomination.

You see, too many of my colleagues have forgotten what it means to be an Originalist on the matter of going to war.

Our Founding Fathers found this to be one of the most important discussions at the time, and they were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the President.They were concerned an executive with that kind of power could choose to rule like a King.

Before sending our young men and women into battle, we should have a thoughtful and honest discussion about the ramifications, authorization, and motivations for war.

That could be done if we were all Originalists; not just for the court, but for our legislative duties as well.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants the Congress and Congress alone the power to declare war. The President is given the power to direct the military only after the Congressional declaration has been passed.

This is our law and was generally our practice.However, like in many areas, we began to abandon our founding principles for expediency. We have not declared a war since World War II and we have too often used our military without even a more modest Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This is dangerous.As Madison wrote, the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it.The Constitution therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

I salute the nomination and confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and his Originalist views.

I salute and applaud my colleagues for their work to get him to the bench, and for the words they used attributing their vote to his views on the Constitution.

But I cant say I dont find it ironic that on the very day they did these things, they also turned a mostly blind eye to an illegal and unconstitutional military strike.

I will hold politicians of both parties and both branches accountable.I ran for office to protect our Rights and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution to the best of my ability. That means defending the Constitutionally granted power to declare war as one belonging to Congress, just as our Founding Fathers intended.

See the article here:
Exclusive-Sen. Rand Paul: Would an Originalist Unilaterally Bomb ... - Breitbart News

Sen. Rand Paul continued to voice his displeasure Friday after President Trump ordered airstrikes against Syria Thursday night in response to President Bashar Assad's usage of chemical weapons against his own civilians, warning of "unintended consequences."

The Kentucky Republican told reporters in the Capitol Friday morning that the continued decisions to topple regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, including Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, have made things worse in those regions and could ultimately give rise to the Islamic State in Syria if Assad is taken out of power.

"There are often unintended consequences to this. The unintended consequences of toppling Hussein, who was also a despot, who also had gassed his people, was that we made Iran stronger. So the same neocons that wanted to get rid of Hussein now want to get rid of Iran, that they made stronger by getting rid of Hussein," Paul said. "So when they get rid of Assad, which is what all the neocons want, what if the next people that come into power are either ISIS or radical Islamic rebels. Would we go after them next? Is there an end to the progression of regime change in the Middle East?"

"Right now, we're kind of operating in an unconstitutional illegal zone, same we kind f have been doing for the last 15 years though under both Republican and Democrat presidents who have not really obeyed the law," Paul continued. "It's sort of farcical to say that the resolution to get the people who organized 9/11 has anything to do with today. It's farcical to say the Iraq resolution has anything to do with today."

"So really, they're not obeying the constitution. They're just doing whatever they want," he added.

The comments piggyback off of his initial reaction to the strikes, which he argued would not "make us safer" and would be "no different" than past interventions in the region. The Kentucky Republican also took aim at his colleagues over their lack of willingness to take a vote to authorize military force.

"They won't vote even on ISIS, where they had near-unanimity as wanting to do something. They wouldn't even take a vote on that," Paul said. "The constitution is, for all the debate we had over Supreme Court justices and fidelity to the constitution, virtually no one cares about the constitution when it comes to war."

When asked what could change for this to take place, he simply responded "different colleagues."

Paul also said that he has not talked to the White House about the strikes, either before or after they took place. He said any discussion now would be "a day late and a dollar short."

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Obama's former deputy national security adviser indicated Saturday that he isn't very happy with President Trump's decision to hit a Syrian air base with missiles.

Trump's missile strike, which was retaliation for Syria's use of chemical weapons, drew instant comparisons to Obama, who warned the U.S. would act if Syria used chemical weapons.

Obama did nothing after Syria crossed that "red line" of Obama's, and many said Trump was the one to finally enforce Obama's ultimatum years later.

But in an early Saturday morning tweet, Rhodes suggested that Trump's strike was only aimed at boosting his press coverage, and seemed to warn reporters against helping him achieve this.

04/08/17 4:04 PM

Read the original:
Rand Paul warns Trump of 'unintended consequences' over toppling ... - Washington Examiner

Rand Paul, Barbara Lee, Tim Kaine: 'Unconstitutional'; Schumer ... CNSNews.com "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday night in a statement on his website and ... and more »

See the article here:
Rand Paul, Barbara Lee, Tim Kaine: 'Unconstitutional'; Schumer ... - CNSNews.com

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Friday that the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to review the evidence linking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to a chemical-weapons attack that prompted Thursday nights missile strike by the U.S.

On the surface, Paul said, it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons. He was winning the six-year-old civil war, had the support of Russian troops on the ground, and, just days earlier, received a public statement from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that regime change was not Americas goal.

Hes either the dumbest dictator in the world, or it may be more confusing that this.

Hes either the dumbest dictator in the world, or it may be more confusing, Paul said on The Laura Ingraham Show.

Paul, a longtime critic of U.S. military intervention in Middle East conflicts, made clear he is not peddling a conspiracy theory.

I would like to see the evidence In all this rush, why dont we at least look at the intelligence instead of getting somebodys conclusion on TV second-hand from the president, he said. I dont dispute the evidence, he said. I just havent seen it.

Paul said President Donald Trump was right during the presidential campaign to condemn the war in Iraq and urge caution in Syria. He said the president must keep those principles in mind even in the face of horrifying images of children being killed.

The instincts of President Trump are good ones But hes been greatly influenced by the emotions, Paulsaid.

Paul urged Trump not to get swept up in war fever. He noted the tone of coverage on all the cable news stations, from liberal to conservative.

"There is a huge drumbeat," he said. "Everybody's excited."

Ingraham lamented a "domino of disaster" resulting from U.S. engagement in military conflicts from North Africa to Afghanistan. Paul agreed.

"All the people who wanted to take out Hussein are now clamoring to take out Iran as well," he said. "So where does it end? When will we finally be done taking out regimes in the Middle East?"

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul Wants to See Evidence of Syrian Chemical Strike | LifeZette - LifeZette

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution means anything, it means that the president must obtain congressional approval before takingus to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies and is not threatening to attack the U.S. or its allies. Senator Rand Paul said as muchin an interview today, and I agree with him. As Senator Paul said, The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution.

Yes, the commander-in-chief has broad, inherent authority to orderthe military to defend the national security and vital national interests of the United States, but every provision of the Constitution has meaning, and the Constitution gives to Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. While I acknowledge there are difficult questions on the margins about the extent of presidential authority and when congressional authorization is necessary, I dont believe this is a marginal case.

Assad has been engaged in one long war crime since the onset of the Syrian Civil War, and his gas attacks are hardly his deadliest. There has been a casus bellifor war against Syria on a continuous basis since the onset of Assadsgenocide, but the existence of a legal and moral justification for war does not always render war wise or just. Nor does it remove the need for congressional approval. There is no reason to forego congressional debate now, just as there was no reason to forego congressional debate when Obama considered taking the nation to war against Syria in 2013.

Congressional approval is not only constitutional, it serves the public purpose of requiring a president to clearly outline the justifications for war and his goals for the conflict. It also helps secure public support for war, and in this instance it strikes me as reckless that we would not only go to war against a sovereign nation, wed also court a possible military encounter with a great power like Russiawithout congressional approval. The nation needs to be ready for (and consider) all the grim possibilities and consequences. If Trump wants to go to war, he should take his case to Congress.

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul Is Right; Don't Launch War in Syria Without Congressional Approval - National Review