PAUL: A staggering abuse of power - Obama acts as though we no longer have a Constitution

[Lucille]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/a-staggering-abuse-of-power/

When I filibustered over domestic drone use, critics said that I was being ridiculous. They said that no American had been killed by a drone on American soil and that no one was likely to be anytime soon. President Obama responded that he hadn’t killed anyone yet and didn’t intend to — but he might.

That wasn’t the point. The filibuster was about the limits of power. It was about how much authority the president imagined he had. Lincoln wrote that nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power.

I think Mr. Obama has failed that test of power. From the cover-up in Benghazi to letting the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) target the Tea Party to First and Fourth Amendment violations in obtaining records from the press, Mr. Obama has shown disregard for the Bill of Rights and his responsibilities as commander in chief.
[...]
It was, and the lengths to which Mr. Obama has gone to circumvent the Constitution are staggering. It’s as though the president thinks we no longer have a First Amendment protecting freedom of the press and free speech. It’s as though he thinks we no longer have a Fourth Amendment that prevents illegal search and seizure. It’s as though he and Mrs. Clinton think the State Department is no longer responsible for protecting our diplomats.

It’s as though we no longer have a Bill of Rights that guarantees American citizens the right to due process and a jury trial — and it took me 13 hours of standing and speaking to get the White House to finally, and begrudgingly, say we did. My filibuster was about drone use, but more importantly, it was about never giving government the benefit of the doubt. We cannot afford it, and the government never deserves it, as this administration continues to remind us in so many surprising and disturbing ways.

With great power comes great responsibility. The greater Mr. Obama’s power, the less responsible he becomes.

Power corrupts. Absolutely.

 

[mad cow]

An excellent article,thanks for posting it.

 

[qh4dotcom]

So if Rand feels this way.....when is he going to do something about impeaching Obama?

 

[mad cow]

Rand is a Senator,the House impeaches.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Rand is a Senator,the House impeaches.

Rand has got buddies in the House like Amash, Massie etc. whom he can convince to begin the impeachment proceedings.

 

[Michigan11]

Rand has got buddies in the House like Amash, Massie etc. whom he can convince to begin the impeachment proceedings.

There are 2 fronts in our fight for liberty. One is politically, the other is non-politically. Some understand both sides. Some only understand one of the fronts which ever they are involved in. Amash and Massie could do that, why not ask them why? Why is Rand shouldering responsibility in your eyes for their actions?

 

[thoughtomator]

This article is fantastic. It could be the shot heard around the world.

 

[radiofriendly]

Power corrupts. Absolutely.

 

[brooke499]

Yes...thank-you for posting the article.Rand Paul brought out so many very critical,serious points to light. This is no longer just a Republican issue,it is very much a
bi-partisan issue that should cause great concern by both Republicans AND Democrats.I would like Senator Rand Paul to list the limits of power .

The United States Constitution and Bill off Rights provide an amazing provision of checks and balances.Its designed to be a good thing,for everyone.Its,a protection for our freedom,our liberty,our system of government.AMERICA!!!!OUR ....America.

It is a system that has made us the most powerful country on earth.ALL presidents present and in the past, have sworn to an oath, to uphold and protect our U.S.Constitution,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.It is my great hope that the system of checks and balances,will be the resolve of current turmoil in our government.It is my hope,that Congress will NOT allow their authority , their power,to be USURPED . If the balance of power tips.....well then what will we have?

 

[J_White]

like someone said - Obama is a Bystander President, it would seem

 

[brooke499]

I am very concerned about the U.N.Arms Treaty.From what I've read,it is to be signed by President Obama June 3,2013 which is in 10 days. I do not know if this went to our United States Senators/Congress for approval.It is my great hope,that ANY treaty that would USURP our United States Government,our United States Constitution,and our Bill of rights,would NOT Ever ever ever be able to be signed.I do not understand why I have not seen anything regarding this lately on the News,and I do not understand why CONGRESS is not shouting from the roof tops regarding the signing especially in small printed clauses that would violate our U.S.
Sovereignty. Our U.S. trusted and protected constitutional rights to an organization that is FUNDED in great part by the United STATES .United Nations is a ORGANIZATON.It is NOT a country.
Can anyone here...please explain what is going on with the U.N.Arms Treaty and can anyone here assure the American Citizens that our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS will not be violated,usurped,signed away. ANYONE!
This is 10 days away!!!.while everyone in Congress and Senate,and Oversight committees are non stop dealing with problem ,after scandal after scandal.....will we all wake up...to find U.N. in America taking away our guns?......Can this be stopped?Can this be restrained? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! WAKE UP!!!

www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/us-decision-to-sign-un-arms-trade-treaty which can be read at the Heritage Foundation web site by Theodor R.Bromund Ph.D. Article posted May 20,2013.

 

[supermario21]

No worries, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate with a 2/3 majority. It will never happen.

 

[Lucille]

 

[Warlord]

Warning: BUMPING CONSTRUCTIVE THREAD

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think its kind of funny how Lincoln failed his own test. LOL!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No worries, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate with a 2/3 majority. It will never happen.

Yeah, like the UN Agenda for the 21st Century.

Oh wait...

 

[brooke499]

What are the rules and procedures for the ratification of a treaty such as the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? I thought that it first had to be brought to Senate and Congress where it would have to then be ratified as you say with a 2/3rd majority vote. How can this treaty be scheduled to be signed June 3,2013 if it has not gone through the constitutional procedures set in place?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What are the rules and procedures for the ratification of a treaty such as the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? I thought that it first had to be brought to Senate and Congress where it would have to then be ratified as you say with a 2/3rd majority vote. How can this treaty be scheduled to be signed June 3,2013 if it has not gone through the constitutional procedures set in place?

That would be correct!

However, the United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (Agenda 21) is likewise an international treaty that has been HEAVILY implemented in the United States, but never went before the Senate for advice and consent. So there is already precedent for the US to become party to treaties in full abrogation of that Constitutional requirement.

 

[Pericles]

What are the rules and procedures for the ratification of a treaty such as the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? I thought that it first had to be brought to Senate and Congress where it would have to then be ratified as you say with a 2/3rd majority vote. How can this treaty be scheduled to be signed June 3,2013 if it has not gone through the constitutional procedures set in place?

Typically the treaty is signed and then ratified by the Senate. At that point, the treaty is confirmed.

 

[brooke499]

The United States Constitution

That would be correct!

However, the United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (Agenda 21) is likewise an international treaty that has been HEAVILY implemented in the United States, but never went before the Senate for advice and consent. So there is already precedent for the US to become party to treaties in full abrogation of that Constitutional requirement.

The United States Constitution,is a TRUSTED document. It is IN A TRUST!!! This document,which has afforded us the greatest protection, freedoms,and liberty we have as a nation,and made us, the most powerful Nation on earth.! .A trust,is a legal separate entity that has the greatest of power,and powers.I suggest that the Senate,use the authority they have been granted to them. The Constitution of the United States of America, IS THE SUPREME LAW of the land. Senate has the constitutional right to protect,guard,defend, our democracy,protect and defend,and uphold the Constitution as they have sworn to,and not allow our United States of America Constitution to be USURPED,or the Senate to be usurped.!! Our Constitution IS OUR Protection from any,that would seek to take the powers and freedoms that OUR constitution grants us. I am sure if required,the U.S.Supreme Court of the land can affirm this. Where are all the constitutional attorneys? Where are the defenders of our Liberty and our Freedom?I am greatful for Senator Rand Paul who has fearlessly STOOD for AMERICA'S citizens.Both Republicans and Democrats that gave him a standing ovation in the filibuster.This a an AMERICAN ISSUE.We as a nation,cannot hand over,and give away,our freedoms,to an organization.The U.N. is an organization.NOT a country.We fund it.It does not have the right,to dictate to us.Nor does it have the right,to take away our guns as the U.N.small arms treaty could do. Our law,is.....the U.S. CONSTITUTION.