0 votes

Holder almost right; Rand almost wrong

Holder was almost correct in his letter to Rand Paul -- he was correct right up until the point he mentioned 9-11 as an example.

Holder would have been correct if instead he gave the example of Congress having declared war against Mythistan, and a U.S.-born citizen who grew up in Mythistan came to the U.S. as an armed soldier wearing a Mythistan uniform, then of course the U.S. military would have right to use armed drones against such a soldier on U.S. soil.

Would we have begrudged France from repelling Hitler's forces because birthright citizenship of some soldiers didn't quite check out?

Terrorism, on the other hand, is a fuzzy example because it's not handled well with respect to the Constitution. There needs to be some "imminent harm" agreement whereby governors pre-approve U.S. military action in case of an imminent terrorist act (esp. involving nukes, as their effects cross state lines), either legislatively or constitutionally.

That Holder provided an example where not only there was no declaration of war, but the effects of which were confined to a few city blocks, makes him wrong because he forgot about that little provision in the Constitution about declaration of war, and thus makes Rand Paul right. But if Holder had instead adjusted his example as I described above, he would have been right, and Rand Paul would not have been right to filibuster.

The core issue is war vs. terrorism -- a key issue that Constitutionalists have been harping on for over a decade -- and Holder did not address it, and I don't if Rand has in the past 9 hours.

Trending on the Web