PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Rand Paul backs Reid, Obama and Senate into corner on Libya


Taco John
04-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Paul Rankles Reid on Libya

April 1, 2011 11:51 A.M. By Robert Costa
Washington — Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a Tea Party favorite, has boxed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) into a corner. After a quiet day of quorum calls and speeches, Reid abruptly adjourned the upper chamber Thursday and postponed votes until Monday. According to numerous Hill staffers, Paul deserves some credit for the impasse.

Here’s the back story: On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”

To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.

Republicans speculate that Reid was already irked, sensing disarray in his caucus over the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to block carbon regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Paul’s proposal simply added fuel to the docket fire. Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 are quite sensitive to tricky amendment votes, and Reid, some say, may have simply thrown up his hands. For Democrats, a weekend to sort things things out is more appealing than a tense Friday in the cloakroom.

“Paul’s Libya amendment has brought the Senate to a standstill because Reid doesn’t know how to handle it,” one GOP aide tells me. “If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-senator Obama or with President Obama. It’s possible that Reid just yanks the bill or files cloture, seems he may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul’s amendment.”

Still, during a testy floor exchange Wednesday with Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), the Kentucky freshman argued that his amendment deserves a vote, and fast. “In Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the complaints from many people on these wars that we were involved in, President Bush did come and ask for the authorization of force,” he said. “We’ve had two to three weeks of this issue. They had time to go to the U.N. They had time to go to the Arab League. They had time to go to everyone. I think you should be insulted the way I am insulted they never came to Congress.”

Durbin fired back that Bush, by coming to Congress, actually “broke precedent.” Paul looked on, bemused.

Durbin asserted that Obama acted within the law. “The senator from Kentucky has the right to express his point of view, debate it on the floor of the Senate, and the right to pursue the War Powers Act, which gives Congress the authority for a hearing and a decision,” he said. “But what I would, I guess, disagree with the senator from Kentucky is on the characterization that the president did not follow the law. He did notify Congress. I think the circumstances moved so quickly with human life hanging in the balance the president made that decision and now stands with the American people making judgment as to whether it was the proper decision to make.”

With Durbin so confident in Obama’s words and actions, you’d think Reid would hustle to have Senate Democrats back him up on the floor. For now, however, we’ll have to wait until next week to find out.

Taco John
04-02-2011, 04:32 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) issued a Dear Colleague letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The letter requests the Senate take up the pending business of Sen. Paul's sense of the Senate, which quotes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 2007, saying "The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Sens. Paul and Lee also outline their intention to object to further votes on S. 493 amendments until the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote.

"Establishing whether the President has the constitutional power to attack another country without congressional authority is the most important issue we can discuss given the President's recent actions," Sen. Paul said. "I implore our Senate leadership to make this a priority before we continue work on other matters in the chamber."

"The President has failed to receive congressional authorization before committing troops to a conflict that does not imminently threaten the national security interests of the United States," Sen. Lee said. "With our men and women in harm's way, there is no more important matter on which to focus the Senate's time. We should begin debate immediately."

Below is the text of the letter, signed by Sens. Paul and Lee, and delivered to the Democrat and Republican Leaders' offices this afternoon.

April 1, 2011

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

As you know, Senator Paul recently made a motion to have the Senate vote on the following sense of the Senate:

"The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate, and his motion would take up a maximum of 30 minutes of the Senate's time.

Though brief, it would be an important 30 minutes for the Senate. It will be the only 30 minutes spent on discussing and voting on whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to attack another country without congressional authorization.

We believe the answer is that he does not. We also believe Congress has an obligation to stand up and declare whether or not we intend to hold the President to his constitutional oath.

While we realize there are other matters the Senate had planned to work on, it is our belief that there is very little we are doing that rises to the level of a constitutional question regarding war. Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment.

The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue.

We feel strongly enough about this matter that we are writing to inform you of our intentions. The Senate has already agreed to move a bill on Tuesday morning. In order to ensure our rights are protected, we will serve notice now that upon completion of H.R. 4, we will object to further votes on amendments to S. 493 until such time as the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote. We are happy to work with the leaders of both parties on the timing of the vote for next week, and would be happy to allow other business to proceed as soon as an agreement is reached.

ROYC75
04-02-2011, 05:21 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) issued a Dear Colleague letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The letter requests the Senate take up the pending business of Sen. Paul's sense of the Senate, which quotes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 2007, saying "The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Sens. Paul and Lee also outline their intention to object to further votes on S. 493 amendments until the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote.

"Establishing whether the President has the constitutional power to attack another country without congressional authority is the most important issue we can discuss given the President's recent actions," Sen. Paul said. "I implore our Senate leadership to make this a priority before we continue work on other matters in the chamber."

"The President has failed to receive congressional authorization before committing troops to a conflict that does not imminently threaten the national security interests of the United States," Sen. Lee said. "With our men and women in harm's way, there is no more important matter on which to focus the Senate's time. We should begin debate immediately."

Below is the text of the letter, signed by Sens. Paul and Lee, and delivered to the Democrat and Republican Leaders' offices this afternoon.

April 1, 2011

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

As you know, Senator Paul recently made a motion to have the Senate vote on the following sense of the Senate:

"The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate, and his motion would take up a maximum of 30 minutes of the Senate's time.

Though brief, it would be an important 30 minutes for the Senate. It will be the only 30 minutes spent on discussing and voting on whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to attack another country without congressional authorization.

We believe the answer is that he does not. We also believe Congress has an obligation to stand up and declare whether or not we intend to hold the President to his constitutional oath.

While we realize there are other matters the Senate had planned to work on, it is our belief that there is very little we are doing that rises to the level of a constitutional question regarding war. Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment.

The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue.

We feel strongly enough about this matter that we are writing to inform you of our intentions. The Senate has already agreed to move a bill on Tuesday morning. In order to ensure our rights are protected, we will serve notice now that upon completion of H.R. 4, we will object to further votes on amendments to S. 493 until such time as the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote. We are happy to work with the leaders of both parties on the timing of the vote for next week, and would be happy to allow other business to proceed as soon as an agreement is reached.


Somewhere Sen. Biden is proud and ready to take action,No wait, hit reverse.

mlyonsd
04-02-2011, 05:27 PM
Gotta admire Durbin. He's such a good soldier.

As for Paul I'm guessing he's using another one of those Obama quotes where he is being taken out of context. Shame on Paul. ROFL

Chocolate Hog
04-02-2011, 05:33 PM
Best Senator in the senate.

ClevelandBronco
04-02-2011, 06:47 PM
There's something about an Aqua Buddha man.

orange
04-05-2011, 07:11 PM
Senate defeats Rand Paul’s resolution reasserting Congress’s war powers, 90-10

posted at 7:02 pm on April 5, 2011 by Allahpundit

This wasn’t a resolution to authorize operations in Libya but something far craftier — a resolution reaffirming Obama’s own words from 2007 that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” When Paul first introduced the idea last week, a flustered Harry Reid temporarily closed up shop to keep it from coming to the floor.

Turns out he needn’t have worried. The roll: 90-10 opposed. Disgraceful.
The problem with Paul’s amendment, as seen by many members of the Democratic majority, was that it quoted then-Senator Barack Obama’s words from 2007 in what appeared to be an attempt to embarrass the Democratic president…

Paul’s proposal was “too cute by half,” declared Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday after she joined other senators in voting to table it, 90-10.
Paul had trouble getting even his fellow Republicans to support his idea. Some said they didn’t approve of where he had chosen to offer his war powers amendment — on legislation to do with small businesses. “I think we need to address Libya, when (that’s) the focus,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, after the vote.

That’s a convenient excuse but since Democrats weren’t about to let this pass, there’s no reason Republicans should have let a formal objection deter them from supporting it — if only to remind The One of what a hypocrite he is. All 10 no votes were GOP, but it’s an interesting mix: The tea party caucus of DeMint, Paul, and Mike Lee, the Maine RINOs Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, freshmen Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Jerry Moran, and veterans John Ensign and Jeff Sessions. I wonder if Collins and Snowe jumped aboard because they fear public support for the Libya mission crumbling eventually and want to be on the right side of the debate when it does, or if they’re simply worried about tea partiers in the primary and are trying to earn grassroots cred by siding with Rand Paul here. Hmmm.

McConnell, Kerry, Levin, Lieberman, and McCain are reportedly mulling a real authorization resolution for the Libya mission. If it’s 90-10 against Paul on this, I assume a genuine AUMF will have no trouble passing. Here’s Paul’s floor speech in support of his measure this afternoon. Exit quotation: “The new motto of Congress appears to be, ‘Tread on me. Please, tread on me.’”

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXs5R0Qn9Ac&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXs5R0Qn9Ac&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/05/senate-defeats-rand-pauls-resolution-reasserting-congresss-war-powers-90-10/

BucEyedPea
04-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Well orange this goes to show what tards we have in our most deliberative body—the Senate.


BTW I found Tom Woods site where he locates a little known article in the UN Charter saying they, the UN, must go by Constitutional procedures of govts on military action. He really beat down NeoCon King Marc Levin who resorted to calling those who disagreed with him on this anti-semitic— on war powers that is. LMAO And he censored comments on his own blog of those that disagreed as well.

Taco John
04-05-2011, 09:28 PM
Senate defeats Rand Paul’s resolution reasserting Congress’s war powers, 90-10

posted at 7:02 pm on April 5, 2011 by Allahpundit

This wasn’t a resolution to authorize operations in Libya but something far craftier — a resolution reaffirming Obama’s own words from 2007 that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” When Paul first introduced the idea last week, a flustered Harry Reid temporarily closed up shop to keep it from coming to the floor.

Turns out he needn’t have worried. The roll: 90-10 opposed. Disgraceful.
The problem with Paul’s amendment, as seen by many members of the Democratic majority, was that it quoted then-Senator Barack Obama’s words from 2007 in what appeared to be an attempt to embarrass the Democratic president…

Paul’s proposal was “too cute by half,” declared Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday after she joined other senators in voting to table it, 90-10.
Paul had trouble getting even his fellow Republicans to support his idea. Some said they didn’t approve of where he had chosen to offer his war powers amendment — on legislation to do with small businesses. “I think we need to address Libya, when (that’s) the focus,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, after the vote.

That’s a convenient excuse but since Democrats weren’t about to let this pass, there’s no reason Republicans should have let a formal objection deter them from supporting it — if only to remind The One of what a hypocrite he is. All 10 no votes were GOP, but it’s an interesting mix: The tea party caucus of DeMint, Paul, and Mike Lee, the Maine RINOs Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, freshmen Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Jerry Moran, and veterans John Ensign and Jeff Sessions. I wonder if Collins and Snowe jumped aboard because they fear public support for the Libya mission crumbling eventually and want to be on the right side of the debate when it does, or if they’re simply worried about tea partiers in the primary and are trying to earn grassroots cred by siding with Rand Paul here. Hmmm.

McConnell, Kerry, Levin, Lieberman, and McCain are reportedly mulling a real authorization resolution for the Libya mission. If it’s 90-10 against Paul on this, I assume a genuine AUMF will have no trouble passing. Here’s Paul’s floor speech in support of his measure this afternoon. Exit quotation: “The new motto of Congress appears to be, ‘Tread on me. Please, tread on me.’”

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXs5R0Qn9Ac&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXs5R0Qn9Ac&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/05/senate-defeats-rand-pauls-resolution-reasserting-congresss-war-powers-90-10/

Thanks for the update. This seems politically insignificant right now, but I think we're seeing the first ripples in the GOP pond.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 09:07 AM
Where's Donger? He supports the idea that the CiC takes us to war.