Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Rand Paul Warns Of Domestic Drones In Presidential Hands

March 7, 2013 by  

Rand Paul Warns Of Domestic Drones In Presidential Hands
UPI FILE
Senator Rand Paul filibustered in the Senate on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) spent hours filibustering in opposition to U.S. drone policy as he delayed the nomination of John Brennan to the top position at the CIA.

Paul began his filibuster promising to speak until he could no longer speak.

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” he said.

The filibuster was broadcast to a large audience on C-SPAN, but other U.S. Senators were evidently less interested in Paul’s liberty-defending speech. By 1 p.m., just more than an hour into the speech, Paul was the only Senator left on the floor.

The filibuster resulted from Paul’s displeasure about the answer Attorney General Eric Holder provided to his inquiry about whether the Federal government has the power to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil. Holder responded to Paul, saying the Presidential Administration could kill Americans in the homeland, but has “no intention” to do so at this time.

From Holder’s letter:

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Paul said that his question was not whether the President had the authority to use lethal force if the Nation is under attack.

“When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The President’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that,” Paul said.

The Senator noted that he is not trying to cause problems for the President, but will do what he must to protect the Constitution.

“I have allowed the President to pick his political appointees,” Paul said. “But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution. I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the President say that he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking a country.

“I would be here if it were a Republican President doing this. Really, the great irony of this is that President Obama’s opinion on this is an extension of George Bush’s opinion.”

Paul also criticized Obama for losing the respect for the rule of law and Constitutional civil liberties that he was once very vocal about as a member of the Senate.

Paul spent a portion of his filibuster expressing concern over the Federal government’s classification of the war on terror as an ongoing, borderless conflict and the government’s always-changing definition of who may or may not be a terror threat.

He noted that many university students protesting war in the 1960s could have been considered enemies of the state. Could they have been killed with drones under current policy, he wondered.

“Are you going to drop… a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.

Paul could get the answers to his questions directly from the President soon, as Holder told a Senate committee Wednesday that he expects Obama to explain the legal justification for the use of armed drones to target and kill U.S. citizens overseas.

“We have talked about a need for greater transparency in what we share, what we talk about,” said Holder, who added that with the release of more information, “there would be a greater degree of comfort that this government does these things reluctantly but also in conformity with international law, with domestic law and with our values.”

After Paul’s filibuster, more direct answers about domestic drone policy will likely by given by top Administration officials as well.

At around 3 pm Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) joined Paul in filibustering domestic drone use. Later, Paul was joined by a number of other Senators, including Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Rand Paul Warns Of Domestic Drones In Presidential Hands”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Warrior

    Yep, it ALWAYS starts out as just an innocent policy in “our best” interests. No I swear, we’re only implementing these as one of the “tools” at our disposal, like to catch “speeders” on the highway. Well then, do you forsee a circumstance whereas you may have to use a drone strike to “kill” an American on American soil? Oh heavens, that is not our “intent”! May I take that as a NO, or absolutely NOT? Ah,”maybe” we’ll get back to you on that.

    • Robert Smith

      “For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if ”

      This isn’t unprecidented. Jets were dispatched to take down airliners if necessary to protect terrorist targets on the ground.

      The drone is simply a bigger bullet than the policeman carries in his gun.

      Eliminating hardware or tactics of our military, police, and other lawful bodies keeping America safe is just as nuts as telling Americans they can only have certain kinds of guns that don’t “look” ugly like the AK-47.

      Rob

      • Jonathan

        And I have a problem with jet fighters targeting every civilian aircraft that gets too close to a “terrorist target.” Last summer, I watched as several F15 fighter jets did manuevers over my neighborhood because a Cessna jet accidently flew into “restricted airspace” due to instrument error. If they had shot this Cessna down, it likely would have crashed in a populated area.

        But hey that’s okay, what’s a few more innocents dead at the hands of our government, right Rob?

      • Hedgehog

        What is your point? Either you Americans have a GOD given right to LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS or you don’t, make up your minds! Obama obviously thinks you don’t and you voted him in, twice!

        sic transit gloria USA!

      • Ron

        Really, I have a bridge to sell you, if you believe his crap!!

      • WILDFIRE

        Robert – The problem the definition of “terrorist” – Terrorists used to be thought of as foreign origins. Then they come up with “Domestic terrorists” or “Home grown terrorists”, now they define any one that doesn’t agree with Obama and his administration as a potential domestic terrorist.

        Democrat congress members have declared on the record such people that are potential domestic terrorist as people who speak out against the government in any way shape or form, birthers, preppers (people who have more than 7 days supply of food in their possession), tea partiers, Constitutionalists, Patriots, Retired veterans and most any one that has served in the military and has now returned to civilian life, elderly people and Pretty much any one who even so much as comments against this administrations policies are deemed a potential threat to national security for informing the public of the truth and facts is deemed a potential domestic terrorist.

        Much like Jane Fonda was doing in the 60′s and 70′s when she was promoting socialism / communism – In todays definition of a domestic terrorist – she falls well within that definition and you want to have one person making a decision on whether you will have the right to live based solely on the premise of your opinion and belief with no oversight?

        All the while, the same person you want in charge of who is defined as a terrorist or not is labeling terrorist attacks such as the Ft. Hood attack on soldiers by a islamist and call it a work place violence and the elderly veteran that flies a flag on his front lawn and salutes the flag as he passes by it as a domestic terrorist.

        Also the very man you want to leave in charge of who is or is not defined as a terrorist is boosting arms and weapons to our sworn enemies of the brotherhood and branches of alqueda and is promising to make deals with our Russian enemies to break down and weaken our military defenses and cut our nuclear weapons down from 8000 to 1500, all the while our enemies are building their defenses in leaps and bounds and Obama is calling our enemies friends and our friends enemies.

        I wonder if you or one of your family members or friends if you have any was to get hit by a drone strike either directly or as collateral damage for being in the vicinity of Obama’s defined domestic terrorist, would you still feel the same way when your family starts being killed off with no judicial process afforded them, merely a command of one mans interpretation of who is a threat and who is not without any oversight from any other Americans and no proof or fact of evidence found in a courtroom? What if someone has an enemy and they conjure up false stories and misinform the president intentionally so he will give the order to kill their advisory and eliminate their personal threat by which posed not threat at all to the national security, only a threat to blowing a whistle on someone.

        No, that is not even conceivable is it? The Obama administration to lie and conjure and concoct and manufacture lies and deceit to push their agendas, they would never lie would they Robert? They are all “honest Abe’s”

      • mjr47

        This reply is ‘aimed’ at YOU Robert Smith. I also CONCUR with ‘Hedgehog’…you simply can’t ‘fix’ stupid!!!

      • WILDFIRE

        I forgot to also add the fact that Obama is not only assisting our enemies by building their defense and weakening ours with the fact that Obama is building a civilian military and buying up weapons and ammunition’s by which go against the geneva conventions “Law of war”. All the while trying to disarm the law abiding American citizen who has placed their life in danger to protect their Country and have taken an oath by which they carry with them long after they return to civillian life and deem these people potential security threats and potential domestic terrorist

      • Vicki

        WILDFIRE says:
        “….preppers (people who have more than 7 days supply of food in their possession),…”

        By that definition most American households are preppers. A loaf of bread and jar of peanut butter will last 7 days. :) The peanut butter a lot longer.

      • Warrior

        Hmmm, Robert, I recall a time when a Korean 747 Airliner was blasted out of the sky. Oops, just an accident!

  • FreedomFighter

    ROBOTIC WAR MACHINES HAVE NO PLACE OPERATING ON AMERICAN SOIL AGAINST AMERICANS — THIS IS EQUAL TO DECLARING WAR ON YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    sorry for shouting, but I have seen these things in action, you really dont want them here.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

  • Chad

    Rand Paul is the only Man in Washington that has a pair of Nuts !
    I say Mr. Rand Paul for Predident !! You have my vote definitley !

    • mark

      I, too, am supporting Rand Paul for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 I recently sent him a donation. I hope and pray Rand Paul does win the Republican nomination and will vote for him in the primaries. Then Hillary will win the White House by the biggest margin since FDR in 1936 – 65-35% popular vote, I would predict, with Hilary carrying every state in electoral college with the exception of a handful of Klan states in the South.

  • mjr47

    Over the course of many years AND many Administrations…American Citizens have slowely lost their Constitutional Freedoms. Inch by inch, the ‘line in the sand has become more blurred. If you eat an elephant one bite at a time or all at once…the result
    is still the same.

    These ‘wack-a-mole’ tactics are not being used to ‘entertain’ us. They are carefully crafted to divert our attention from what is REALLY happening. Daily, multiple new ‘crises’ garner our attention and ‘yesterday’s ‘news’ is quickly forgotten. Our ‘attention’ follows these ‘circus side shows’ and we fail to see what is happening in the MAIN arena.

    Thank you Rand Paul and the other Senators who are refusing to settle in to the ‘business as usual’ mentality of past Congressional ‘leadership’. WE the People ‘hired’ you with our votes and we can ‘fire’ you through that same process. The ‘elephant’ is becoming aware of it’s impending danger. These voices of dissent are being raised in attempts to warn us! Thank you for re-focusing a laser light on the ‘main events’. Hopefully, it’s not too late!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!

  • eddie47d

    I support Rand Paul’s premise that Americans shouldn’t be killing Americans and this gives too much power to the already powerful. Yet he says that “they are willing to kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking a country”. There ARE Americans who are actively attacking other Americans and many more plotting action against their government and anyone who doesn’t support their views. Apparently he never heard of the Alaskan Peacekeepers Militia or the numerous other groups actively setting up plans to do harm. The right wing groups are far more active in their pursuits than the Weather Underground was in the 60′s. There are also Muslim groups who’s members are legal citizens who plotted against the USA. (1993 World Trade Center bombing). It would be awful if there are strikes within this country but let’s not be naive about those plotters.

    • Hedgehog

      Hey Eddie, you missed the Ohio National Guard at Kent State and the little fracas wounded knee, ruby ridge, the big fracas with the FBI using tanks to suppress religious dissenters and all the bungled DEA drug raids, etc., etc.. Did you know that if you translate Department of Homeland Security into German, it comes out Gehheimstatspolitzei, (Gestapo).

      Have a nice day!

      • Vicki

        Interesting. I tried translate.google.com and it said “Department of Homeland Security” on both the English and German side of their translator. If I chose another language it would translate to that language.

  • ibcamn

    Obama;”my guns are bigger than yours”..(referance on drone strikes to American people)or on gun control issue!

  • PATRIOT TILL DEATH

    ” the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack” like the one in Oklahoma city, just ask the the SPLC, Patriots are the real problem.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/spring/once-again-gun-control-spurs-the-patriots

    “The antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement expands for the fourth year in a row as hate groups remain at near-historic highs” so we are now a “hate” group??

    http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism

    So if you believe in America and the constitution you are going to be labeled a hate group, first they villify you, this will be all over the news to create support for the elimination of anyone not willing to drink the cool-aid…

    Pray for America as the left Preys on America…

    • Ariesdancer

      Couldn’t agree with you more Patriot. This gives the liberals an easy out to kill anyone that they deem may disagree with them. So basically freedom of speech is also on it’s way out as another of our rights are taken away.

  • PATRIOT TILL DEATH

    Don’t worry the SPLC will train law enforcement to determine who the real terrorists are..

    From SPLC website: “Training Law Enforcement
    SPLC representatives communicate regularly with law enforcement agencies about extremist activity and conduct in-person training for officers at the local, state and federal level. Thousands of officers have received training that helps them recognize and deal with hate crimes as well as threats posed by extremists. This training is available free to law enforcement agencies.”
    .

  • JeffH

    Tell the POTUS and the GOP you stand with Rand Paul!
    http://www.imstandingwithrand.com/

  • TML

    It would be full blown tyranny, and a crime, to execute even the so-called plotters without due process of law for supposed crimes that they ‘might’ commit. Anyone who would support the use of armed drones to carry out such action is so grotesquely arbitrary and dismissing of the Constitution and it’s principles as to be guilty of treason for initiating what can only be called war on the American people themselves.

    • WILDFIRE

      @TML – So what if they do execute an American on American soil, So what if it is tyranny. What is going to be down about it? If it causes a uprising and protest, Obama will declare the protesters “home grown terrorists” and a threat to the government and send in all the nice new shiny armor vehicles he just purchased for DHS and send in drone strikes on the protesters on the grounds that they pose a threat to government and then he will declare martial law.

      Why do you think Obama and holder and the rest are doing everything in their power to instigate a uprising in this Country? They want nothing more than an excuse to declare marshal law and they are doing their best to create a situation that will cause chaos.

      They have tried causing chaos and uprising starting with the OWS movement, that didn’t go as planned, then they tried using Obamacare, then amnesty, then gun bans and now drone strikes on Americans on US soil. Eventually one of their attempt are going to be the “straw that broke the camels back”, and all H3ll in gonna break lose. Its only a matter of time.

      If the American people do not willingly allow their arms to be confiscated, he will create a situation to declare marshal law and he will disarm by force and their is nothing that 90% of the Americans are going to do about it, when it comes down to it. Only 10% or less will take a stand and join together shoulder to shoulder and march against the tyranny. The rest will be cowering in their closets and under their beds hoping the “brown shirts” or the “blue hats” march past them and not collect them and place them into concentration camps aka FEMA indoctrination camps. If they are found and captured, they will willingly board the buses and trains and be herded into the camps with little to no resistance with the hopes they will somehow regain their freedom some day. The jews had the same mind set when the Nazi’s come calling and they peacefully walked them self right to their own demise without at least going out with a fight.

      • WILDFIRE

        Typo corrections on “Martial law” not Marshal

      • TML

        WILDFIRE says “If the American people do not willingly allow their arms to be confiscated, he will create a situation to declare marshal law and he will disarm by force and their is nothing that 90% of the Americans are going to do about it, when it comes down to it. Only 10% or less will take a stand and join together shoulder to shoulder and march against the tyranny.”

        If I were to accept that nightmare scenario, then I would assume protesting and petitions for redress of grievances would have long become ineffective. At which point the proper course of action against tyranny is defense through the sovereignty of the state. All tyrannies (federal actions and law which are not pursuant to the Constitution) should be met with state nullifications or interpositions (some states are already introducing such resolutions against the use of armed drones, as well as any attempt to infringe the 2nd Amendment in their state legislatures), and if it ever came to the nightmare scenario you present, I have no doubt you would see entire states seceding before “standing shoulder to shoulder to march on tyranny”, or any real physical resistance, would even be necessary. It would be imperative that any such actions take place through the state, as prescribed by the Constitution, and that those actions be limited solely to defense of natural rights.

      • WILDFIRE

        TML says:

        “If I were to accept that nightmare scenario, then I would assume protesting and petitions for redress of grievances would have long become ineffective. At which point the proper course of action against tyranny is defense through the sovereignty of the state. All tyrannies (federal actions and law which are not pursuant to the Constitution) should be met with state nullifications or interpositions (some states are already introducing such resolutions against the use of armed drones, as well as any attempt to infringe the 2nd Amendment in their state legislatures), and if it ever came to the nightmare scenario you present, I have no doubt you would see entire states seceding before “standing shoulder to shoulder to march on tyranny”, or any real physical resistance, would even be necessary. It would be imperative that any such actions take place through the state, as prescribed by the Constitution, and that those actions be limited solely to defense of natural rights.”

        I see the point you are addressing, however, lets look at your scenario of “redress of grievances” – They have been putting laws in place by which limit the ability to redress grievances. Without looking up the exact wording of the law, it in essence states that there can be no protesting on government property or within a certain footage or yardage of where a politician is or is going to be or where secret service is, or something to that effect. In other words, what is the sense in redress of grievances if the politician isn’t going to see or hear the grievances because they are several city blocks away. That is just a start, as any laws that go into effect, they will continually build on that and add more and more restrictions to the point that no protest or rallies what so ever will be allowed to assemble any where.

        One only has to look at the laws and the EO’s that recent president’s have been putting in place particularly starting in the 90′s to present. DHS, Southern Poverty, FBI and other offices pretty much has labeled anyone that so much as has a bumper sticker that speaks down on the government is considered a potential threat.

        Lets look at your suggested scenario of sovereignty of a State. Suppose a State tries to break away and become sovern from the US nation. That State has no military by which can match the military of the US, what is to stop the US from declaring war on that sovern State and taking control of that state, once acquired, rename it or redistrict the borders to expand the surrounding States. What allies would that sovern State have to come and help to assist if USA declared war on the newly sovern State? Furthermore, even if that State had an allied force willing to come assist, they wouldn’t get close to the USA before they were engaged and destroyed before arriving, it would be a suicide mission to even try, unless perhaps it was Hawaii or alaska that become sovern. I suspect if Alaska was to seek sovereignty, it would end up eventually being in the control of Russia. For I don’t see America getting into a war over an alaskan sovern territory by which didn’t want anything to do with the USA anymore.

        As far as your suggestion that any action that takes place be done according to the constitution. Well that statement in its self has proven to be unlikely in this day and age. We currently have a boat load of people in various Government offices that don’t believe in the Constitution, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even in the judicial branch by which the interpret the constitution as a living document and a document that is “outdated” and no longer relevant in this day and age of our “progressive society”. Look at all the laws they are constantly conjuring up that is in direct conflict of our constitution, yet they spin wording and concoct a whole different meaning of the constitution. Examples: NDAA pretty much eliminate several of our amendments, their laws on hate speech and definition of hate speech pretty much set limits on the 1rst amendment for starters, as time goes on they will continue to add to that list to the point there will be no freedom of speech or the press. Obama is and has been dictating what can and cannot be in the media. look at how the liberals have spent the past several years spinning the wording on eligilbility of the President. They have done their best to ignore the plural word of parent and claim only the mother has to be an American citizen at the time of birth. Next time a president comes along and has a foreign mother but an American father, the liberals will change and claim that only the father must be US Citizen. Fact is the Constitution has a “S” at the end of parents, implying that both must be American citizens, not one or the other, but both must be.

        Point being, especially since Obama has taken office, they have been violating and pushing the limits of the constitutional powers of the federal Government upon its people and not a week goes by that they have not passed another law that further restricts the American people in one act or another. Every time a mandate, a regulation, a law, a stipulation a policy is put into place is a act of the people losing more freedoms while a government is gainng more power. Your illusions that States would secede under certain circumstances, would never fly, the federal government will never willing give up or hand over total power and allow a state to secede losing all the tax revenue from that state. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the federal government would love nothing more than to have States secede so they can attack them take them over and redistrict the borders eliminating some states. This would mean that someone like Obama wouldn’t have to deal with 50 different Governors and countless state legislature. It would be more ideal for someone like Obama to have to deal with maybe 10 or 20 governors rather than dealing with 50, 20 is easier to bribe and manipulate than 50 individuals.

      • TML

        WILDFIRE says “Lets look at your suggested scenario of sovereignty of a State. Suppose a State tries to break away and become sovern from the US nation. That State has no military by which can match the military of the US, what is to stop the US from declaring war on that sovern State and taking control of that state, once acquired, rename it or redistrict the borders to expand the surrounding States. What allies would that sovern State have to come and help to assist if USA declared war on the newly sovern State?”

        I guess the entire conversation comes down to whether one is optimistic or pessimistic… unless you are trying to say, through such a pessimistic view, “why even try?”

        As to the specifics of how a state might win such a conflict, I think it’s imperative to point out that secession MUST only be done in the face of clear and complete breech of the compact (the Constitution) based on the two great principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. From there, there is no greater wrong in the eyes of the world, than to strike preemptively, and as a sovereign State, it must be the federal government which takes the first shot, or violates their sovereignty by force of arms. When that is done, then I’m sure allies would be made, if not from foreign countries, then even by other states. The important part is acknowledgement and acceptance of that State’s actions by the international community, which would be achieved if the above principles are followed. As to the State not having a military, or the military might of the United States federal government being undefeatable, then I will point out that a military can be quickly developed and organized faster that what you might realize. Which says nothing of the gun owners and militias. Additionally, we could look at Vietnam, where the great and powerful United States got their butts kicked by a bunch of Charlie’s in the face of such overwhelming military.

        This is all very hypothetical talk of course.

        My true expectation is that nullification and interposition of breeches of compact will actually produce results that would avoid the need for secession all together.

        WILDFIRE says “As far as your suggestion that any action that takes place be done according to the constitution. Well that statement in its self has proven to be unlikely in this day and age.”

        I am more optimistic about that than you are I guess. It may depend on where you’re from I suppose. I live in Texas and I’m such I would be more concerned about that if I loved in Illinois or New York.

        WILDFIRE says “They have done their best to ignore the plural word of parent and claim only the mother has to be an American citizen at the time of birth.”

        Well, actually, I agree with that interpretation. Bob Livingston has made very good arguments for the source of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” being the Law of Nations. In that work, which was commonly known by the founders, it states, “I say, that, in order to be of the country [natural born], it is necessary that a person be born of a father [singular] who is a citizen”. The Supreme Court case which uses a plural of parents was not a case to define, or even address, the meaning of natural born citizen. The case was to determine if an individual was a citizen or not, in order to rule on a case. There is a distinct difference in a citizen and natural born citizen in that a citizen may even be naturalized. My take on this is objective. I certainly have no love for Obama that would influence this position. By this, and in congruence with the United States Code 8 USC § 1401, I hold that a person born on American soil, requires only one parent who is a citizen in order to be considered natural born, and a person born abroad requires two parents who are citizens in order to be considered the same.
        Notice in 8 USC § 1401 (c) of the United States Code it specifically says “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens”. Calling out a simple plural, which could be grammatically connected the plural use of “children” is insufficient. Such as in the court case often used, the simple plural of the word “parent” is weak to the argument when even the US Code specifically speaks in terms of BOTH parents and ONE parent such as we see in 8 USC § 1401 (d) of the United States Code, “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States”.

        WILDFIRE says “Point being, especially since Obama has taken office, they have been violating and pushing the limits of the constitutional powers of the federal Government upon its people and not a week goes by that they have not passed another law that further restricts the American people in one act or another.”

        There have been many things of that nature I agree, and I’m sure one could rightfully argue that it has been going on for much longer than since Obama was put in office. We could even point to Bush II for initiating such current trends under the auspices of a war on terror, which have only been continued under Obama. We could go back to 1913 at the establishment of the Federal Reserve, or even back to the Civil War. The constant chipping away at the Constitution is what must be fought, and the right way to do that is through the Republic system, and state nullification or interposition.

        WILDFIRE says “Your illusions that States would secede under certain circumstances, would never fly, the federal government will never willing give up or hand over total power and allow a state to secede losing all the tax revenue from that state.”

        If it reasonably came to that, and that became a reality, the all I could say is, let them come and try to take it.

      • WILDFIRE

        TML says – I guess the entire conversation comes down to whether one is optimistic or pessimistic… unless you are trying to say, through such a pessimistic view, “why even try?”

        No, I’m saying saying “why even try”, I’m saying “that it has been tried repeatedly”.
        The more people exercise their right to redress grievances, the more restrictions the federal government places to limit and/or eliminate it all together.

        You speak with high confidence in the Constitution and I believe strongly in the constitution as well. However, the Constitution, federal laws, State laws and so on are only as good as the people in place to enforce them. In other words, if the powers that be don’t value or respect such things as the Constitution or laws, then they are not going to uphold them. Can we agree that under this Administration, we have a President whom himself has stated that the constitution is an outdated document and a flawed document? Can we agree that others in Congress have made the same or similar statement that they don’t agree with or approve of the constitution as it is written and can we agree that we have Supreme Court justices that want to over throw the constitution and adopt a different constitution? We have a President that regardless to his Oath of office, refuses to enforce federal law such as DOMA and immigration law.

        So, perhaps first we need to be on the same page in order to understand each others point of view perhaps a little clearer.

        Again, I ask, what good is a Constitution (law of the land) of federal law or any other law, when you have leadership that does not lead according to law, rather picks and chooses which law to follow pending if it fall within their personal approval or not? Furthermore, makes up laws as leadership goes regardless to its constitutionality to further push the leaders personal agenda.

        TML says – As to the specifics of how a state might win such a conflict, I think it’s imperative to point out that secession MUST only be done in the face of clear and complete breech of the compact (the Constitution) based on the two great principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

        Again – The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence has no relevance to those in power who don’t recognize it as the supreme law of the land nor lead by it or enforce policy based on it.

        TML says – it must be the federal government which takes the first shot, or violates their sovereignty by force of arms. When that is done, then I’m sure allies would be made, if not from foreign countries, then even by other states. The important part is acknowledgement and acceptance of that State’s actions by the international community, which would be achieved if the above principles are followed. As to the State not having a military, or the military might of the United States federal government being undefeatable, then I will point out that a military can be quickly developed and organized faster that what you might realize. Which says nothing of the gun owners and militias.

        Lets say a State such as Nevada or Tennessee was to secede, if there happened to be a war against that sovereign State versus the USA. Other States could not engage as an ally of the sovereign State until first seceding them self from the USA. As far as a foreign ally come to assist the sovereign State in this scenario, they wouldn’t make it most likely because they would have to first fly over or travel over US territory by which the US will not authorize them to fly over or travel by land. They would be destroyed or blown out of the air before they made it. If that would happen, then I suppose it would open doors to a world war and it would be brought to our shores. I guarantee there are many Countries that would join in if a war was to occur on our shores and enough Countries pulled together. I have lived and worked in over 36 Countries, There is no shortage of folks who despise this Country by no means.

        TML says – Additionally, we could look at Vietnam, where the great and powerful United States got their butts kicked by a bunch of Charlie’s in the face of such overwhelming military.

        As far as nam goes, we got butts kicked because of leadership. Johnson wanted a war, a war that would last a long time. Our guys would take a hill in the morning, only to be ordered to abandon it by night fall allowing “Charlie’s” to come behind us and recapture it only so we can have to fight and lose more lives and spend money to retake it in a few days. In essence, they had our guys going in circles to fight battles in an endless war. That war had more to do with politics and money than it did about spread of communism. But nam is for another conversation another day.

        WILDFIRE says “As far as your suggestion that any action that takes place be done according to the constitution. Well that statement in its self has proven to be unlikely in this day and age.”

        TML says – I am more optimistic about that than you are I guess. It may depend on where you’re from I suppose. I live in Texas and I’m such I would be more concerned about that if I loved in Illinois or New York.

        As far as that goes, it doesn’t matter what State you live in when it comes to the Federal Government and failure to uphold the Constitution – Their failure to uphold and enforce effect each and everyone of us regardless to which State we reside in. Some States might try to pass laws to nullify a federal law or mandate, but the federal government will respond with another law to trump the State law. Take the immigration law for instance. Federal Government refuses to enforce immigration law, So State attempt to enforce immigration law and they are met with lawsuits and obstruction to enforce laws implemented by the very governmental body that is supposed to enforce them.

        WILDFIRE says “Point being, especially since Obama has taken office, they have been violating and pushing the limits of the constitutional powers of the federal Government upon its people and not a week goes by that they have not passed another law that further restricts the American people in one act or another.”

        TML says – There have been many things of that nature I agree, and I’m sure one could rightfully argue that it has been going on for much longer than since Obama was put in office. We could even point to Bush II for initiating such current trends under the auspices of a war on terror, which have only been continued under Obama. We could go back to 1913 at the establishment of the Federal Reserve, or even back to the Civil War. The constant chipping away at the Constitution is what must be fought, and the right way to do that is through the Republic system, and state nullification or interposition.

        Agreed, Obama is not the first or the only one who has been taking our freedoms. Agreed, it has been going on for a long time and each an every President has been chipping away a little at a tiime particularly since the 50′s – 60′s era where the communist party of the USA starting making a showing on the stage and all the various EO’s that were created by which gave the FG authority to control all comm’s, all food and agriculture, all transportation’s and so on, then the FEMA and the list goes on. But in my 46 yrs, I have never heard or witness a President so bent on circumventing the Constitution, the Declaration of independence, checks and balances and just blatantly express disdain for capitalism and our law of the land.

  • http://none Phil Severson

    At last a politician who has the guts to stand up for the people who elected him. First last and always America is a Constitutional Republic.Each of the amendments as relevant now as they were 200 years ago. The frallties and evils of human nature never go away no matter how civilized and idealistic we think we are. One amendment cannot be compromised without endangering the rest

  • Pingback: Obama Not A Dictator, Not A King : Personal Liberty Digest™

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.