As is the custom on Capitol Hill, plenty of those who are politically opposed to President Obama have taken to the Internets, news shows, and press releases to respond to the President's address on Libya. One of those lawmakers making his voice heard is Tea Party freshman, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). In his remarks, he blasted President Obama for a lack of "understanding of constitutional checks and balances," adding:
"While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here."
"Neither was the case here." Except on March 1, the United States Senate passed - by unanimous consent, no less, so that would include Sen. Rand Paul - Senate Resolution 85 which, among other things:
... urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory...
Below I've included Sen. Paul's response to the President's address in its entirety. You can also read it on his website. Find out what Lawrence has to say about this and more in tonight's Rewrite.
Leave a Comment:
I don't believe in ghod, but Obama is pretty dang cool
What about Gawd, or as they believe in Judge Dredd comic books Grod?
You know my dad has taught me to listen to the man, and do your research. I have done that and I have in the past voted on republicans and democrats. In the past few years I've watched msnbc and what a joke I have heard republicans put down Obama for not going in sooner till he went in then they say he shouldn't have gone in. The topper is after his speech when he explained it all and said we wouldn't be there long Pat Buchanan says we just can't pull out. I think voting for the man days is gone I am voting democrats for now on!!!!
In case Aqua Paul hasn't noticed, this isn't a war. The two wars we ARE in and "putting on the credit card" were started by the republicans by lying to the American public..
Democrats had their chance to unite against the Iraq War and prevent a majority vote but they didn't. I'm not even a Republican (or Democrat or Tea Party) and I don't support the war; but when you look at the numbers for the Iraq War Resolution, 215 Republicans voted "Yes" while only 6 voted "No". As for the Democrats, 82 Democrats voted "Yes" and 126 voted "No". Everyone has their share of the blame for that mess.
Libya is not a War? What kind of idiocy is this? We are dropping bombs on a foreign country. If bombs were landing in your city from a foreign foreign I think it safe to say you might call it a war.
Rand Paul is grandstanding for the Tea Party. No more, no less.
1. Senate Resolution 85 is non-binding; it DOES NOT have the force of law.
2. It was passed in less than a minute after introduction, with no debate, and only the title about "condemning human rights violations" was read outloud. Here is the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 85, which was introduced earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 85) strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 85) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rand Paul (who had a CNN interview that day, and probably used the bathroom and whatnot as well) may not even have been in the room at the time. If he was, he was not necessarily aware of the line you have quoted. Furthermore, the motion was not actually voted on at all, and thus all a given Senator did was not-vocally-object to a resolution which only expressed a sentiment and did not possess any lawful power anyway.
@ C. Wendt: I didn't see your name on the Rand Paul blog with sailingaway and FreeMan in Kentucky, but you sure do post the same stuff which disproves what you claim.
If it had been introduced RIGHT THEN your "less than a minute" could have been something other than unmitigated bull@!$%#. (And you would have posted it.) But, no.
As for how unimportant the non-binding Senate Resolution truly is--how come Paul made such a stinking fuss about introducing his OWN non-binding resolution in an actual bill that has nothing to do with Libya?
And as for "only expressed a sentiment", here is that "sentiment":
The fact that it is non-binding and doesn't have the force of law (like the UN answers to the U.S. Senate?) doesn't turn the URGING into a "sentiment."
"If it had been introduced RIGHT THEN your "less than a minute" could have been something other than unmitigated bull@!$%#. (And you would have posted it.) But, no."
Fair enough; I've been loose with my wording. The resolution was given to the clerks earlier that day, as my own quotation would indicate. Nevertheless, it was not debated before passage, the only part read aloud at the time was about condemning human rights violations, and the part about the "No-Fly Zone" was tucked away quite a ways down the line. I will say that from what I have seen, Rand Paul was, perhaps, negligent in allowing it to slip by without objection, but this does not invalidate his position or his actions since.
"As for how unimportant the non-binding Senate Resolution truly is--how come Paul made such a stinking fuss about introducing his OWN non-binding resolution in an actual bill that has nothing to do with Libya?"
Because he wants to force debate about the (immoral and unconstitutional) war Obama has embroiled us in, and this is an effective means of doing so. If he tried to implement an actual policy solely on the basis of his resolution, you could charge him with hypocrisy, but this is not what he is doing; rather, it is a tool to get the ball rolling.
"The fact that it is non-binding and doesn't have the force of law (like the UN answers to the U.S. Senate?) doesn't turn the URGING into a "sentiment.""
I think forceless urging which is known to be such by those doing it amounts in effect to an expression of sentiment, but perhaps I am being imprecise in my wording; regardless, you are nitpicking. More importantly, the UN does not answer to the Senate, but under the Constitution, the president does. The president had no lawful authority to do as he has done, and Rand Paul is 100% correct to take him to task for this. The fact that individuals such as Lawrence O'Donnell are trying so vigorously to shift focus to Rand Paul himself or to a non-binding Senate resolution (which was, itself, only passed by one chamber of Congress, and thus, even if had been forceful and had specifically authorized US military action, would not have constituted lawful authority for the president to do as he has done) reflects their desperation to avoid discussing the actual issue at hand, in favor of attempting to discredit the messenger.
I don't know how to break it to you, but O'Donnell being something of an ass doesn't make Paul any less of a hypocrite. He didn't bother when he--like every other senator--had the chance, which he did, unlike what you stated, and now that is out of the way he is grandstanding. Trying to stuff another non-binding resolution into a small business bill just makes him look desperate for attention--and hypocritical.
I don't think "loose with words" covers the crap you posted. As I've pointed out, even really stupid email hoaxes often include a link to Snopes insisting that IT IS ALL TRUUUUUUU Snopes has confirmed it!!! when the link shows it is a hoax.
And it is a bit more than "loose with words" to try to frame it as
when Paul is jumping up and down yelling "look at me, look at ME!" If he didn't want the focus on himself, that would be even sillier. If he actually wanted some discussion or debate he'd be trying to team with Republicans who have a clue to facilitate that. Or even sponsor some actual legislation.
Maybe he can't find any who want to do any more than he does, this early in the game, particularly since NATO was going to be assuming control over the no-fly mission, as it did. Or maybe it is just all about him, the way it looks.
A resolution is not going to be any more "forceful" if it is a Joint Resolution. It's still non-binding. The U.S. military action at that time was as part (the lead part) of an international U.N. sanctioned mission. We didn't go cowboying off into the Middle East again. And if you are looking at the Constitution for Presidential authority over the Army, the Constitution didn't cover a permanent, standing army--the Founders were dealing with local militias that could be federalized in case of need for national defense. But nobody took away the title "Commander in Chief" when we turned to the maintenance of a standing army. To protect our specified national interests (which are real, not like the "mushroom cloud" the Bush Administration spouted) in some shreds of stability in the region, the President has Commander in Chief authority regarding the army. The fact that you don't like that doesn't make it go away.
Oh, I see--the ever-popular "they" are at it again. I'm sure that is a compelling argument in some circles.
"I don't know how to break it to you, but O'Donnell being something of an ass doesn't make Paul any less of a hypocrite."
1. I never claimed anything to the effect of what you are countering here.
2. You have never really provided a coherent explanation why you think that Rand Paul is a "hypocrite" for failing to pick up on the "No-Fly Zone" line in this quietly-passed resolution and object. I've not heard him ever criticize someone else for failing to object to a non-binding unanimous consent resolution; have you?
"He didn't bother when he--like every other senator--had the chance, which he did, unlike what you stated, and now that is out of the way he is grandstanding."
Strictly speaking, he did "have the chance" to object to a symbolic resolution with one objectionable line which flew through under the radar, and perhaps would have done so had he been a tad more vigilant, but he certainly did not have the chance to vote on an actual forceful (and constitutionally-mandated) Congressional declaration.
"I don't think "loose with words" covers the crap you posted."
Instead of saying "Introduced and passed in less than a minute," I should have said "announced and passed in less than a minute;" I never thought or meant to indicate it was the case that the bill was actually physically submitted to the clerks less than one minute before it was passed, but only that it was announced, the "condemning human rights violations" bit was read off, and it was breezed through with "the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office," as John Ensign put it. He went on to note that "it was ‘hotlined’ and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider. There was no vote." My essential point stands; I simply misused the term "introduced" as it applies to the legislative process.
"when Paul is jumping up and down yelling "look at me, look at ME!" If he didn't want the focus on himself, that would be even sillier."
Actually, he is jumping up and down yelling, "Look at the illegality of the president's actions, as illustrated by his own words prior to assuming the presidency!"
"If he actually wanted some discussion or debate he'd be trying to team with Republicans who have a clue to facilitate that. Or even sponsor some actual legislation."
He is teaming with Senator Mike Lee. As I imagine you may have noticed, the Republicans in general are a rather warlike lot, and none too courageous, to boot; the majority of them would probably not be willing to stick their necks out for something like this. As for actual legislation, I expect that is the next step. He is simply starting out with a proposed resolution which draws attention to Obama's flip-flop and should force Senators to openly discuss the (il)legality of his actions. Rand Paul's father, along with Kucinich, has introduced a measure in the House to defund the Libyan invasion; hopefully, if this Libya business goes on, Rand will introduce or sponsor something similar in the near future.
"A resolution is not going to be any more "forceful" if it is a Joint Resolution. It's still non-binding."
You appear to have misread the text you are responding to, here; I did not say that non-binding resolutions gain force from being passed in both chambers, but rather that even if this resolution had been meant to be forceful, the fact that it had only been passed by one house of Congress would still disqualify it from status as lawful authorization for a military offensive in Libya.
"But nobody took away the title "Commander in Chief" when we turned to the maintenance of a standing army.
Yes, but said title did not grant the president power to engage in foreign military aggression without Congressional authorization in the first place- rather, the authority was vested in Congress- and neither does it do so now.
To protect our specified national interests (which are real, not like the "mushroom cloud" the Bush Administration spouted) in some shreds of stability in the region, the President has Commander in Chief authority regarding the army. The fact that you don't like that doesn't make it go away."
No, actually, even under the War Powers Act, the president only has authority to unilaterally authorize a military offensive in the event that he is dealing with an immediate threat to US national security. There is no lawful authority for the president, lacking Congressional authorization, to commit armed forces to a foreign offensive; pre-about-face Obama himself put it well when he said, “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”- a statement which Rand Paul has adopted word-for-word, and yet which neither Obama himself nor his supporters in Congress (or much of the body politic) seem quite so sanguine about anymore.
"Oh, I see--the ever-popular "they" are at it again. I'm sure that is a compelling argument in some circles."
You have taken a line out of context, added an emphasis which was not present in my original post, and either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the very plain meaning of my words; I said that the actions of "individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell" betray their (meaning said individuals') desperation to avoid actual debate over the crucial issues at hand, rather than simply attempt to drum up personalized attacks on their opposition. "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."-Marcus Tullius Cicero
I usually try to get through posts that somebody seems to have taken the effort to address to me, but I think we can just agree to disagree. You post bull@!$%# and when I point that out you call it "nit-picking." I'm sure the truth looks ever so nit-picky when you have no regard for it. We aren't going to agree, and you have no credibility still defending that as if it is nothing. I'm not wasting any more time--although I will post the truth if I happen upon any more of your lies and I feel like it. I just won't bother with your back-pedaling and justification.
I can see you are complaining at the end about taking something out of context though--that is pretty much all you do, but I hope I did not follow suit. ~pphhtt~
Double post; apologies.
I don't often agree with Rand Paul, but this time he is right. The resolution he voted for did not authorise the USA to go to war, just to ask the UN to do it. The constitution must be interpreted precisely.
Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knew better. He took the illegal shortcut because of Republican domination in the house. They choose to do the opposite of whatever he proposes just on general principles, so they would oddly turn to superdoves. He would not have got approval, so he broke the law.
I thought I remembered the senate voting on a no-flyzone resolutuion, and it passed over whelmingly. They had hearings with Gates and other military official that explained what a no-flyzone would curtail. So why all of a sudden so many have amnesia. The real problem is certain people in congress don't believ that an African- American President is smart enough to handle things without a white man looking over his shoulder
Why do you say "Arician - American" This has nothing (nothing) did you hear NOTHING to do with race. It has to do with following our Constitution. I don't care if our president is purple and was born in Key West, FL to parents of Chilean and Chinese heritage. Congress declares war, the President is the Commander in Chief to wage such war.
Is it to much to ask for the president to get congressional approval for our actions in Libya before the fact. If there was plenty of time to gather support in the UN, there was plenty of time to put before congress.
Lawrence O'Donnel has his head up his ass!
What a stretch to say that Rand Paul endorsed exactly what the President is doing. This senate resolution was an appeal to the United Nations to aid in the Libyan conflict. Establishing a no-fly zone was recommended, but I didn't see where that was defined as "The U.S. will lead the coalition to establish a no-fly zone by dropping bombs and firing missiles in order to demolish Libya's air force." What Rand Paul "endorsed" and what ended up happening were two different things.
This guy is nothing more than Keith Olbermann without the smoke coming out of his ears.
This story shows just how twisted MSNBC and liberals are!
I think everyone agrees with Rand Paul and the Senate Resolution to enforce a "No-Fly-Zone" and Muammar al-Gaddafi stepping down.
But in no way did Rand Paul say America or this President should do it! To mislead your audience like this nightly is reprehensible!
It amazes me how people can be so untruthful and still keep their jobs!
There is a ugly stench that comes out of the twisted nightly news on MSNBC!
The entire Tea party is trying to take us back to a time of Robber Barons, at will employment and corporate elitism. Their failure to attack the real issues of American militarism, State department, CIA, DEA and other out of control government agencies. The failure to investigate corporate fraud and tax evasion but rather to attack social programs is reprehensible.
My hope is that enough middle class citizens vote the entire Republican tribe out of office and out of existence by huge margins. The Democrats are far from perfect and have failed on many fronts to stand up for Democratic principles. We need a new party that represents us.
Where is a fine upstanding Republican like Teddy Roosevelt when you need him!
Your first paragraph was right on. But a pox on both your houses. The Demos are equally as guilty in supporting Federal agencies that have no Constitutional right to exist. GE is a strong supporter of Obama and the Demos. They paid zero Federal taxes this past year. Charlie Rangel was a major recipient of GE's largess and helped write tax law to help them pay no taxes.
A pox on both your houses. If they are an incumbent, vote them out.
The problem with the criticisms of O'Donnel is the lack of context. Remember at the time that this nonbinding resolution was passed, Newt Gringrich and other Republicans were attacking Obama for not taking action swiftly enough. So representatives and Republican spokesmen are criticizing the the president for not taking action, a Senate Resolution passes asking the president to take action is passed and then the president takes the very action asked for. Whether or not Senator Paul voted for the resolution, it does seem unfair to say that the President did not consult Congress.
Last I checked, the UN doesn't have an air force. Who has the most formidable air power in the world, and is also a member of the Security Council that was being implored to do something? That's right. Rand Paul and the other Republicans griping about the President's action are hypocrites.
There was no vote in Congress authorizing our military action in a foreign country. Please read the Constitution. If you are required to obey laws, our country must also live up to its end of the bargain and obey its rules.
he is right Obama is not a King and he doesn't have the right to bomb Libya.
Is this before or after Rand already said that America needs to institute a no-fly zone over Libya? Maybe he should just send some campaign workers over to Libya and have them stomp some heads.
i just heard this fool on MSNBC call Rand Paul a lier. The vote on March 1 was not a vote authorizing the President to use our military in an action against a foreign country. Me thinks MSNBC is being less than truthful. There has been no vote to authorized military action in Libya. Please, take off your political blinders and read the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief, the Congress declares War. We are at War in Libya, our Congress has not had a vote. In my mind this is clearly a violation of our Constitution.
I believe the word is spelled L-I-A-R. Are we, as intellectuals who look at these comments as a means to gauge, judge and discern, seriously going to accept the opinions of someone who can't even use spell check let alone google? I sincerely suggest that everyone stop trying to defend crooked politicians simply because you like what they have to say. To believe anything a politician says to the news media is akin to accepting that Professional Wrestling story lines are real. The current state of news media exists to sell advertising to demographics of people who watch the news they wish to hear from the viewpoint they want to hear it from. To accuse the President of the United States of violating or constitution is par for the current state of politics. How quickly we forget how many times President Bush and Vice President Cheney violated constitutional law and everyone let it slide (example: refusing to testify to the 9/11 commissioners in an open forum or under oath like everyone else; are we still created equal?). Simply put, the American people chose Barack Obama by majority in the electoral college as well as the popular vote, it is a matter of neglect in regards to personal responsibility and somewhat petty to not accept the decision of the people and not support the country in that decision. Did I like Bush? Not really, but I supported him through out his MANY mistakes and his endeavors to use his office to acquire financial gain for his personal constituents in the oil industry not to mention enlist us in an illegal war in Iraq. It is the patriotic duty of every single American to respect our own system of government, despite our mistakes and unanimously move forward and work together. To bash the president at this point in the game is to bash yourself and every other American for not doing more and taking personal responsibility (dear god anything but that) to make sure the "right" individual is put in office. But then again, I may be wasting my time typing this as this is all probably over your head. After all, it's spelled L-I-A-R.
Thank you for exposing Rand Paul for the dishonest person that he is.
There was no vote. Odennell lied in his broadcast. There is no contradiction in asking that the world take a stand and then saying there was no vote authorizing military force in Libya. Odennell is the lier, not Rand Paul
I find it a little rediculous concerning Rand Paul's actions concerning a Resolution that gives no authority to the President of the United States to take any action. Dr. Paul's statements don't contradict the Resolution which did not support any action by the United States or the President.
I hope last word doesn't continue to draw at straws like this, but rather focuses on what it is actually good at.
To fromkingston - Rand never voted for 'resolution 85'. It was passed on motion 'without objection' before Rand could even get back to the floor, wasn't even read, so no one knew what was in it, and was explained away as 'nonbinding'. Check out the Congressional Record, only the TITLE mentioning NO military action was read, even, before it was deemed passed. Wonder why they did it like that? Maybe because Rand Paul had been the only one to object to extending the Patriot Act for three years 'by unanimous consent' the same way? What sort of 'representative government' is this?
O'Donnell owes Rand Paul a retraction.
I like Lawrence, but he has gotten less honest since he got this show (and time slot).
Ummm...hey Paul,
Look up Senate Resolution 85 (S RES 85) in Thomas or The Library of Congress web site.
Please take note of the following in the header: Latest Major Action: 3/1/2011 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Now of course you are aware that there are no laws passed to authorize military action. They are authorized through Resolutions. And I'm sure you know that Resolutions are non-binding. And of course you also know that the Senate can vote electronically from their offices as long as there is unanimous consent. If one person withholds their consent, then the vote must be held by roll call, in person, on the floor of the Senate. The fact that the Resolution passed means that there was unanimous consent (including Rand Paul). So that means either Rand Paul is lying, has a very short memory, or is grossly incompetent.
Rand Paul was wrong not to object to unanimous consent on the non-binding Senate Resolution 85 urging the United Nations Security Council to take action. However, in order for the President to be constitutionally authorized to take action he needed the United States Congress to vote for a binding resolution calling for such action by the Untied States. That is not what happened, and The Last Word is misleading its audience by suggesting otherwise.
Here's how resolution 85 was "agreed to" while Rand Paul was out of the room. It took all of 35 seconds.
(between 04:13:44 and 04:14:19)
Sorry, It won't let me post link to "Senate Session, Part 2 Mar 1, 2011"
It happens during the last 2 minutes.
Right, they waited til he was out of the room to do Senate business. You are getting your information from people who assume you don't know or don't care that he could have objected at any time after the resolution was introduced to Senate leadership--including the Democrat or the Republican who introduced the resolution--and there would have been no "Unanimous Consent."
If you think he can't read, do you also think his staff isn't supposed to be on top of the business of the day? Besides making really stupid excuses for him, I mean.