Thank you for responding to Rand Paul's recantation of his earlier Constitutionalism. Your statement is much more moderate and conciliatory, and therefore probably more helpful, than anything I would have composed in the heat of disappointment.
Where can this man have found in the Constitution:
(1) A power to allow military courts to try criminal acts within the US?
(2) A withholding of due process rights in cases where the charge is for a crime of sufficiently high seriousness (i.e. "This crime is so serious that persons accused of it should be punished on the basis of the accusation alone.")?
(3) A power for the government to punish, or even prosecute, an accused person merely on the basis of a coerced confession?
(4) A legal definition of "terrorism" ?
I am doubtful that Rand Paul will offer any reversal of his statement, which I suppose to have been from the heart, and also that, even if he does reverse it on the eve of his fund-raising event, his
reversal will be sincere. I cannot envision myself giving any further support to his campaign.
Further, I will be watching for a repudiation of his statement by Dr. Paul, Sr.,
in the absence of which I will have to reconsider giving any further support to his political efforts.
This is a crisis in the history of the Campaign for Liberty.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: