Rand Paul Explaining Resistance to Obama's New Orders on "The View"

[fickman]

I think Rand does great in this interview. He's calm, articulate, shows extreme patience, demonstrates listening skills, and expresses the concerns in a relatable way to a hostile audience. Whoopi shows a lack of listening comprehension, but I expected that.

Article at The Blaze:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01 ... y-illegal/

Video:

[JP171]

I wonder if she thinks her PPO's should have to give up their "automatic weapons"

[TexasJohnBoy]

The comparison to registering journalists is freakin gold. I'm going to remember that one.

[Richbirdhunter]

Where can I get some of these automatic weapons that whoopie was talking about

[The Annoyed Man]

I made Rand Paul's point about precedence some time ago: http://heritageandvirtue.com/sausage-ma ... dence.html
My words, so I reproduce them here in full:

An Observation about Precedence

Written by [The Annoyed Man]. Posted in Executive

Good morning my peeps. Despite my political inclinations in one direction, I still have friends who incline in other ways. I want to say right up top that I am no longer a republican, nor a democrat. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative independent who holds political parties in general in suspicion, and the republican and democrat parties in particular in something bordering on contempt. As one of my friends puts it, I am a Liberative Conservatarian.

This being the holiday weekend in which we commemorate the birth of the nation, and the subsequent establishment of a Constitution which (in theory) governs all of our secular affairs, I have some questions for those of my friends who lean in a specific direction away from my own.

SOME of you voted for Barak Obama for POTUS..... .....TWICE.

Don't worry..... I still love you...... but I do have these questions for you which, from where I sit, are going to be hard to answer if you are being perfectly honest. And, I want to establish right up front that "because so-and-so did it" is not a good reason. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that stuff.

Obama has claimed powers for the presidency that have never been claimed before. In other words, he has "out-imperialized" even the previous most imperial presidents we've ever had. Perhaps the last president to expand the powers of the presidency to such a degree from his predecessor was Abraham Lincoln. Obama is fond of comparing himself to Lincoln, but let's get real. Lincoln expanded his powers during an actual shooting war between rebellious states and the Union. There is nothing even remotely like that going on today to justify the power grab of this president.

In his own words, he will act without Congress if he can't get Congress to bend to his will. Even Bill Clinton, the last two-term democrat president didn't do that. Bill Clinton, whose politics I take exception to, and whose personal morals are on equal footing with a ......well.... a congressman, even Bill Clinton accepted the will of The People as expressed through Congress. When Congress forced the "Contract with America" upon him—regardless of whether or not that was good policy—Bill Clinton accepted the will of The People, and he tailored his budgets to the constraints placed upon him by Congress. WHY did Bill Clinton do that? He did it because, AT HIS CORE, Bill Clinton believes in the Constitution of the United States enough to respect the limitations it placed upon his authority as the nation's chief executive.

Not your guy. Your guy does not accept any constitutional constraints upon his power. He has openly declared that if he cannot bend Congress to HIS will (not The People's will), then he will rule with the pen and the phone....... HIS words, not mine.

The ONE thing that has kept this nation more or less stable during its entire 238 years, and even allowed it to heal after the devastation of the Civil War, has been the respect of her chief executives for the Constitution of the United States. Have others on occasion violated that standard? Yes. Even George W. Bush occasionally missed the mark, as did conservative icon Ronald Reagan. BUT........ NOT ONE OF THEM ever threatened (PUBLICLY, no less) to rule without Congress if he couldn't get Congress to agree with him on every detail of his agenda!!! Obama is the first president to do that. There are other chief executives in human history—THANKFULLY not in the United States—who have done that....but it did not work out so well.

You might think this is not a big deal. And as long as YOUR guy is in power, I can see how you might think that. The problem with that viewpoint is that it is short-sighted in the extreme. Why is it short-sighted, you might ask? I can answer in one word: PRECEDENCE.

Once your guy establishes a precedent for presidential behavior, that behavior is available to all future presidents UNLESS a new amendment is added to the Constitution forbidding that specific behavior..... and as we all know, Constitutional amendments can fail to be ratified, or they can take hundreds of years to pass. (One of the amendments to pass more recently was part of the original Bill of Rights package submitted for ratification over 200 years ago.) So, I can see your wheels turning, thinking to yourselves, "why would the precedent for an imperial presidency be a big deal? I LIKE big government, so I have no problem with an imperial president".

Here's the problem, also one word: PENDULUM. It swings. Both ways. And right now, it is NOT hanging dead center; it has swung hard to the left. But sure as God made little green apples, it WILL swing the other way......ALL the way. When it does....and it WILL.....will you be content with the conservative of your worst nightmares wielding the exactly same presidential scepter that Obama waves over our heads today?

Obama has waived his scepter over immigration, and our borders are crumbling as we suffer under a foreign invasion only the blind cannot see, and you are either a) quiet and acquiescent, or b) you are egging him on even further. What if this nightmare president uses the EXACT same powers established as precedent by Obama to forcefully eject any person who cannot show legal residency? Will you be EQUALLY quiet about that? After all, YOUR guy established the precedent.

You see? Policies come and go, but the one thing that guarantees stability is respect for the Constitution......in its ORIGINAL INTENT. We have at our disposal, free of charge and easily available to ANY citizen, the original intent of the founders. It is not necessary to "interpret" those intentions. They are clearly stated, in language intended to be understood by AVERAGE Americans, in the Federalist Papers......written by the same men who wrote the Constitution. WHY would you seek "interpretation" anywhere else but from the words of the very men who wrote the Constitution?

ANY attempt at "interpretation" is an attempt to divert attention away from original intent, and towards some agenda or other. That agenda may be liberal or conservative, but it is NOT original intent. The Founders would have been appalled at the idea of what the Department of Homeland Security has become. They might even have been appalled at the idea of its inception. Having recently thrown off a King, they would CERTAINLY be appalled at the idea of a chief executive who threatened to rule without Congress, as if the three legs of government—the executive, the legislative, and the courts—were unnecessary to a stable political landscape.

So, when the conservative of your worst nightmares gets elected.......and it WILL happen some day as the pendulum swings all the way right.....will you go along with his/her policies and his/her decision to rule extraconstitutionally, because his/her decisions will be covered by YOUR guy's flaunting of Constitutional limitations on HIS power?

If you would not be satisfied with this precedent falling into what you consider to be the wrong hands, then I strongly urge you to support changes that will place restrictions on this behavior NOW!

If you are unwilling to demand that YOUR president obey the restrictions placed upon him by the Constitution, then I will call you out on it when future presidents act the same way. I will tell you, "You HAD a chance to change it back when, but you wouldn't support it when your guy was in power. That means you're not concerned about the power, only about the policy. That makes you a hypocrite."

Our Founders knew and understood that policies come and go, but that the SERIOUS task of creating a new government was to divide all power between 4 sectors—the executive, the legislative, the courts, and The People. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution even says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE." Obama very plainly does not believe that this august, nearly sacred document has any power over him.

Will you continue to acquiesce blindly to his will, without ever questioning it, even when that will is not subject to any of the same limitations of law to which WE are required to submit? If you are willing to acquiesce without questioning, then how much do you love your country? Will your answer be "I love my country so much that I am willing to destroy it to save it"?

OR.... will your answer be, "I love my country so much that I am willing to place limitations on MY president's power today, so that I don't have to live under another tyrant tomorrow?

How do YOU answer that? (I don't need to answer it; I already have.) If you can't bring yourself to answer, "YES! I love my country so much that I am willing to place limitations on MY president's power today, so that I don't have to live under someone else's tyrant tomorrow", then DON'T—YOU—DARE [complain] and moan and whine when the pendulum swings the other way......and it WILL someday....and carry on being a giant stupid bore and a pain in everyone's [posterior]...... because that is what YOU voted for. If it comes to that, then shut your pie-hole, admit you were wrong, and be a good soldier in the cause of liberty.

Otherwise, don't look to any other patriot for sympathy, or help.

[jerry_r60]

Paul explained they were not really automatic. Of course he didn't spend the time on definition of terms etc. and that's fine. Since I'm sure he could have explained it and she would still have said the same thing. It could have been fun to hear what kind of gun she has. What's the chance that it to is semi-automatic?

[The Wall]

You're a man in control of his emotions to be able to even watch that show. I can't do it. I tried and I get that funny feeling in my throat and nauseated.
The same feeling when I watch Obama, Hilary,Pelosi, and Reid. They spew without a clue.

[cyphertext]

Paul explained they were not really automatic. Of course he didn't spend the time on definition of terms etc. and that's fine. Since I'm sure he could have explained it and she would still have said the same thing. It could have been fun to hear what kind of gun she has. What's the chance that it to is semi-automatic?

That was exactly what I was thinking... what kind of guns do you have Whoopi, since you said you are a gun owner... Do you only have bolt actions and revolvers? Maybe a lever action in there as well? I'm betting she has a nice little semi auto Glock.

[Stupid]

I am sorry but the Republicans really should learn from the liberals on how to speak.

The moment Rand Paul mentioned "Constitution," he lost all of his audiences including me who actually is keenly aware the overstep the president took. We need to remember no liberal gives a crap about the constitution! We wouldn't even have this debate if they care about the constitution.

When the reporter asked why he has such a big issue with Obama's EO, he should have said: "Because the president's proposal is helping the criminals and does absolutely nothing to protect the American people, particularly the poor. At a time of terrorism, mass shooting and gang crimes, the president wants to the American people to give up their lawfully owned firearms so that they can be slaughtered by the criminals. He does this particularly to the poor Americans because they are most targeted by the criminals and can't afford even the current high cost."

Now, that will get them to think about it.

[Scott Farkus]

Paul explained they were not really automatic. Of course he didn't spend the time on definition of terms etc. and that's fine. Since I'm sure he could have explained it and she would still have said the same thing. It could have been fun to hear what kind of gun she has. What's the chance that it to is semi-automatic?

That was exactly what I was thinking... what kind of guns do you have Whoopi, since you said you are a gun owner... Do you only have bolt actions and revolvers? Maybe a lever action in there as well? I'm betting she has a nice little semi auto Glock.

That was exactly my thought as well. I wish Paul would have asked her about that.

[Abraham]

W. Goldberg is a raving anti-gun liberal, who owns a gun.

She said something to the effect that automatic, she meant semi-auto, are only meant to kill.

What on earth does she think her gun of choice will do...?

Wrap around her leg and purr?

[JALLEN]

Have there been any incidents where full auto was used?

Apart for the thingy that goes up, I mean.

[Unocat]

The annoying man has got it right. The pendulum will swing back and then the fun begins... Or it could be not so fun, History is full of totalitarian regimes that turned out to be not so fun for some of if not eventually all of their people.

I am not a big supporter of anyone, but I have some faith that while Trump can't fix Washington, he can certainly burn it down. (Figuratively if you will). This imperial cycle has to stop before the sides do take up arms, then we all lose.

[The Annoyed Man]

The annoying man has got it right. The pendulum will swing back and then the fun begins... Or it could be not so fun, History is full of totalitarian regimes that turned out to be not so fun for some of if not eventually all of their people.

I am not a big supporter of anyone, but I have some faith that while Trump can't fix Washington, he can certainly burn it down. (Figuratively if you will). This imperial cycle has to stop before the sides do take up arms, then we all lose.

It's "The Annoyed Man. Annoyed, not annoying! What did I ever do to you?

[striker55]

Exactly what Mr. Paul said, the President doesn't have the power to make laws. It's not the first time he has used his so called executive power, he must be stopped!