TRAITOR RAND PAUL TO VOTE AGAINST TRUMP EMERGENCY

No problem with Paul speaking his mind. At least he tells everyone what he believes in, and sticks to it, like Trump. They may not agree, but they are honest to what they believe in.

Was one of the few to vote against anti-2nd Amendment, leftist Bill Barr, too.

Doesn't matter! There will not be another American President. There will not be a 2020 election. America cannot survive the traitors in this government any longer.

Nope. Rand is consistent and sticks with his principles.

What a concept!

But what kind of principle is it to ignore the obvious, that there's an invasion going on? I could be "principled" and say that the earth is flat, but mainly then I would be stupid and wrong.

I'll side with Rand.

last I checked, Trump is the one banning bump stocks and giving amnesty to enemy invaders and all in exchange for a fucking FENCE.

Here's a really good thread from Republican lawyer and publisher of [link to humanevents.com] begging Rand to reconsider.

Some of these posts contain pictures, so click the link to see it if the post says (PIC).

--

@RandPaul: Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

@willchamberlain: Senator, that’s not what’s happening and you know it. President Trump is invoking long-standing statutory authority to build the wall. Want to repeal the underlying statute? Fine. But your action today says that Trump can’t use this power - but that Democrats can.
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

When President Obama declared a national emergency in Burundi, you had nothing to say. But when Trump declares a national emergency on our border, you object? Respectfully, Senator, please reconsider. Democrats - and the media - are gaslighting you.
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Reading @RandPaul's full op-ed - it's clear he's trying to think through this question in an honest, forthright fashion (as we have come to expect! That said - I think there are some serious problems with his argument, which I'll go through here.
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

I want to focus on Senator Paul's characterization of the Youngstown case. The Senator argues that "the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order - orders that carry out an expressly voiced Congressional position, orders where Congress' will is unclear...
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

"and, finally orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress." Youngstown is important, and Justice Jackson's concurrence does lay out the framework for executive power. The problem? @RandPaul's characterization is *close* to what Youngstown says - but not close enough.
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

The question is not whether there is "an expressly voiced congressional position." If the President is acting "pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," his power is at is maximum. The difference between a "position" and an "authorization" matters.
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

A "position" reflects, perhaps, the current *mood* of Congress. But "authorization" clearly includes statutes that are already on the books. Thus, under Youngstown, if the President invokes statutory authority for executive action, his power is at its maximum.
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

This means that other parts of @RandPaul's analysis are unsound. The Senator argues that there are "really two questions" - whether the President has the *statutory* authority, and whether he has the *constitutional* authority.
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

However, in the context of Senator Paul's argument, the "two questions" merge into one.
If President Trump has the statutory authority, he's in zone 1 of Youngstown, and on firm constitutional ground. If he doesn't, he isn't.
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

So Senator Paul is left only with the worry that "maybe" the statutory authorization isn't there. I submit that if the Senator believes the statute is ambiguous, he should support the President's declaration and let the courts sort it out.
(PIC): [link to twitter.com (secure)]

But it doesn't make sense to argue that an executive action that correctly invokes statutory authority is unconstitutional under *Youngstown*. It might be unconstitutional for other reasons. It might violate some other constitutional principle. But not this one. FIN
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Last Edited by STAX on 03/04/2019 03:38 AM

Bump stocks aren't very safe. If you want a machine gun, get a machine gun. Or make one, legal or not. But a machine gun with a bias that sprays bullets is unsafe.

Did you read Trump's signing statement? The amnesty stuff is all subject to national security, which means I believe it's not happening. We lost the House and the Republicans didn't stand up strongly for him, so he made the best deal he could.

I don't think it's like Reagan's amnesty. But like with just about everything Trump does, we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.

If Rand Paul is really trying to invoke Youngstown Steel, that's so distant from this case it's essentially dishonest. Rand Paul is doing the same thing his father did, being fundamentally a prick with a nice PR cover for it.

But make no mistake, he's intentionally being a prick here. Maybe he's deep cover pro-Muslim.

What the fuck do you need a bumpstock for? Seriously. It's retarded. The offer to let the DACA babies become citizens while having a wall was a good compromise that the Democrats didn't take, because the Dems don't care about people or DACA kids. They care about the continual invasion of America. That is who they represent in our government...illegals. We really are in the twilight zone.

100% agree.

Trump is the fucking libtard trying to regime change in Venezuela.
Trump is the fucking libtard taking the guns first due process second.
Trump I the fucking libtard doing nothing about the welfare state.
Trump is the fucking libtard signing amnesty bills.
Trump is the fucking libtard signing bigger budgets than Obama.
Trump is the fucking libtard.

The swamp showing us who needs to be voted out.

Rand Paul and his dad are a myth.

I had a 'hunch' Rand Paul was on the 'take' ... He was one that had the election rigged in his favor, according to the records I found. Must be a Clinton 'deep undercover' ... IDK, but I cannot explain it away ... [link to proffer.us]

Pg. 14 - [link to proffer.us]

Awesome rebuts to Paul!

As stated before, get on the phone to the Senators going against Trump because they are supposedly holding to the Constitution, but really just allowing the continual destruction of this country because the Emergency is indeed, LEGIT.

You starting to sound like those 'muh Russia' folks.

Knock it off.

You sound silly.

Rand's objection is to a power grab with which the president is trying to make an end run around the Constitution, which unambiguously says that Congress, not the president, gets to decide how public funds are to be spent.

"He's a traitor cuz he won't let muh god emperor do whatever he wants!"

Fuck off, you're the traitor if you support any politician violating the Constitution.

well, fuck Rand Paul and his retard daddy.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]