Tweet
Alan Keyes: Non-Birther Rand Paul Denigrates Constitution; Natural-Born Citizen Requirement
Birther Report
8/29/2013
Excerpt:
'Non-birther' Rand Paul denigrates Constitution. Also ignores constitutional remedy of impeachment
By Alan Keyes @ Renew America
Sen. Rand Paul just "sidestepped questions about fellow Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) eligibility to run for president, saying he was not a 'birther.'" Paul's contempt for the requirements of the Constitution comes as no surprise to me, despite the fact that his supporters frequently pretend he is a staunch "constitutionist." But a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story's admonition that acceptable constitutional construction "can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries."
Like almost everyone else who collaborates with the current two-party sham, Sen. Paul has chosen to abrogate the Constitution's natural-born citizen requirement when it comes to Barack Obama's eligibility. Now he thinks to prove his fair-mindedness by showing the same disregard for that constitutional requirement when it comes to Republicans. Apparently he thinks that both parties should have the prerogative to disregard the words of the Constitution when it serves their partisan aims.
But respecting the authority of the U.S. Constitution's provisions serves the common good of the American people. It has been the key to the orderly conduct of their affairs since the nation was founded. Is it fair to the nation to permit abrogations of that authority so long as political parties are given equal license to engage in them? Is it worthy of someone who claims, as a matter of principle, to respect the Constitution?
Ignoring the Constitution's "balance of power"
Back in March of this year, during Sen. Paul's much-publicized filibuster, I wrote an article questioning the seriousness of his claim to respect the U.S. Constitution. Though his mini-filibuster occurred in the context of Obama's nomination of John Brennan as head of the CIA, Paul made it clear that he wasn't opposing Brennan's nomination as such. He explained, "I disagree with the president on a lot of political issues, but I voted for his nominations because I think the president does get some prerogative in deciding who his political appointees are." He mounted the filibuster against Brennan not because of the nominee but as a matter of "principle," because Obama refused to declare "that noncombatants in America won't be killed with drone strikes."
Of course, the notion that the president simply has the prerogative to decide appointments that are subject to Senate approval is absurd on the face of it. The Constitution's language clearly assigns the "prerogative" jointly to the president and a majority in the U.S. Senate. Without that majority, the "prerogative" cannot be lawfully exercised. In this respect, the appointment power is, in principle, no different than the treaty-making power. Constitutionally, it makes no sense to say that the president has the prerogative to decide what treaties the U.S. accepts, absent careful, responsible scrutiny and decision, on the merits, by the members of the Senate.
The same is true of his appointments, especially when it comes to positions that involve responsibility for the nation's defense and national security. America's founders clearly recognized the folly of putting prior verbal constraints on the means to be used in response to the unlimited array of potential emergencies that may threaten the nation's survival. Hamilton rightly pointed out that, in such matters, "Confidence must be placed somewhere." As I rightly pointed out in March, "this increases the need to make as sure as possible that it is not given to those who do not deserve it." [...] Continued at Renew America. Hat tip OBC.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...rand-paul.html
Birther Report
8/29/2013
Excerpt:
'Non-birther' Rand Paul denigrates Constitution. Also ignores constitutional remedy of impeachment
By Alan Keyes @ Renew America
Sen. Rand Paul just "sidestepped questions about fellow Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) eligibility to run for president, saying he was not a 'birther.'" Paul's contempt for the requirements of the Constitution comes as no surprise to me, despite the fact that his supporters frequently pretend he is a staunch "constitutionist." But a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story's admonition that acceptable constitutional construction "can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries."
Like almost everyone else who collaborates with the current two-party sham, Sen. Paul has chosen to abrogate the Constitution's natural-born citizen requirement when it comes to Barack Obama's eligibility. Now he thinks to prove his fair-mindedness by showing the same disregard for that constitutional requirement when it comes to Republicans. Apparently he thinks that both parties should have the prerogative to disregard the words of the Constitution when it serves their partisan aims.
But respecting the authority of the U.S. Constitution's provisions serves the common good of the American people. It has been the key to the orderly conduct of their affairs since the nation was founded. Is it fair to the nation to permit abrogations of that authority so long as political parties are given equal license to engage in them? Is it worthy of someone who claims, as a matter of principle, to respect the Constitution?
Ignoring the Constitution's "balance of power"
Back in March of this year, during Sen. Paul's much-publicized filibuster, I wrote an article questioning the seriousness of his claim to respect the U.S. Constitution. Though his mini-filibuster occurred in the context of Obama's nomination of John Brennan as head of the CIA, Paul made it clear that he wasn't opposing Brennan's nomination as such. He explained, "I disagree with the president on a lot of political issues, but I voted for his nominations because I think the president does get some prerogative in deciding who his political appointees are." He mounted the filibuster against Brennan not because of the nominee but as a matter of "principle," because Obama refused to declare "that noncombatants in America won't be killed with drone strikes."
Of course, the notion that the president simply has the prerogative to decide appointments that are subject to Senate approval is absurd on the face of it. The Constitution's language clearly assigns the "prerogative" jointly to the president and a majority in the U.S. Senate. Without that majority, the "prerogative" cannot be lawfully exercised. In this respect, the appointment power is, in principle, no different than the treaty-making power. Constitutionally, it makes no sense to say that the president has the prerogative to decide what treaties the U.S. accepts, absent careful, responsible scrutiny and decision, on the merits, by the members of the Senate.
The same is true of his appointments, especially when it comes to positions that involve responsibility for the nation's defense and national security. America's founders clearly recognized the folly of putting prior verbal constraints on the means to be used in response to the unlimited array of potential emergencies that may threaten the nation's survival. Hamilton rightly pointed out that, in such matters, "Confidence must be placed somewhere." As I rightly pointed out in March, "this increases the need to make as sure as possible that it is not given to those who do not deserve it." [...] Continued at Renew America. Hat tip OBC.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...rand-paul.html