Rand Paul Goes to Washington

Morning Jolt – March 7, 2013 By Jim Geraghty Here's your Thursday Morning Jolt. Enjoy! Jim Rand Paul Goes to Washington Rand Paul added a lot of big fans Wednesday. A day that was supposed to be just another Washington snow day brought us something we haven't seen in a long time: an honest-to-goodness, in-keeping-with-the-Constitution, old-fashioned filibuster, all over a basic, fundamental concept central to our founding: the power of the central government is limited, and the government's authority to exercise lethal force must be particularly and specifically limited. Actual headline in USA Today: "Rand Paul ends epic filibuster over Brennan" He started speaking around 11:45 a.m. Wednesday morning. He finally ceded the floor at about 12:40 a.m. local time on Thursday. Andrew Johnson & Nathaniel Botwinick give you the highlights of Rand Paul's crusade: Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) took to the Senate floor today to filibuster President Obama's nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, as well as to challenge the administration's policy on drones. Paul began speaking at approximately 11:47 a.m. … Paul said he would be happy to end it if he had reassurance from the Obama administration that drone-strikes would not be used on noncombatants. After Reid left the floor, senators Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and John Cornyn of Texas joined in the effort. Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) took to the floor of the Senate this afternoon in support of Senator Paul. He thanked the senator for "defending the institution" of the Senate and its "constitutional obligation to ask relevant questions of public policy and get answers" through his filibuster. The filibuster became a bipartisan effort when Oregon's Democratic senator Ron Wyden joined Paul on the floor in its fourth hour. Wyden called for reining in the executive branch's "serious, far-reaching" drone-strike program, saying that the targeted killings "should not be allowed . . . without any scrutiny." Three hours into Paul's filibuster, fellow Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas joined the Kentucky senator on the floor. Cruz praised Paul for his leadership on the issue of drones and the rights of American citizens, calling him a "modern Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" who is "surely making Jimmy Stewart smile." Along with Cruz, senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas joined Paul on the floor at roughly the same time. John Podhoretz: "Attention everybody in Washington: This is how you make yourself a star." Writing at Breitbart, the Ace of Spades declared it genuinely exciting: I have the same feeling of receding cynicism I did when the Tea Party first exploded on to the scene and began doing things that just weren't done in America anymore -- taking politics seriously, taking the Founders' legacy to us seriously, showing up at Town Halls to ask their once and future representatives some real questions, engaging, questioning, insisting, demanding. There was a time 200 years ago when this was commonplace. Americans had just won their liberty and were enthused about it.  They treated their civic duty not as a mere duty but as the highest aspiration of political man. This filibuster excites me for the same reasons -- a return to the Old Ways, the ways that actually work, the way American politics is actually supposed to be conducted, with Senators offering thoughtful defenses of their positions and, above all, insisting that this nation is We the People not We the Ministers & Lesser Bureaucratic Warlords of Whatever Current Government the Public Has Had the Folly to Install In Office. Jon Henke: "Kinda shocking that it takes a filibuster to get back the right not to be killed by our own government without a trial." Dana Loesch: "The left just exposed their hypocrisy on waterboarding by supporting drone killing without due process." Meanwhile, Ted Cruz generated his own fireworks, getting Eric Holder to appear to concur that the drone policy, as currently stated, runs afoul of the Constitution. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process. "In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?" Cruz asked Holder pointedly. "For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?" Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an "imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm," but that person is suspected to be a terrorist. "I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force," Holder replied. "With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn't about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question," Cruz clarified. "This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate," Holder replied. "I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no," Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a "deprivation of life without due process." . . . When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying "no" such actions would not be constitutional. Our Charlie Cooke: "I'm very disappointed. Rand Paul has been speaking about foundational American values for hours but he hasn't yet mentioned contraception." And Now, This Report from the Department of Opposing Viewpoints . . . An intellectual response to yesterday's item about whether conservatives still have faith in the judgment of the public at large, from Alan Munro of Los Angeles: If you look inside the Iranian Parliament or the Workers' Party of North Korea or -- dare I say it -- the Obama White House you'll see armies of Jim Geraghtys. Well-educated thoughtful types who just want to do the right thing. You know who you won't see? You won't see Snooki. Snooki is exactly what freedom looks like. A simple question: Where would I find more social, intellectual, political and religious diversity -- the corridors of National Review or the nearest topless bar? Answer honestly. If you are one of the leaders of the conservative movement it really is doomed. Sincere apologies for the snide tone of this letter. Actually I admire your writing tremendously. Morning Jolt is my favorite wake-up read -- except when these idiotic echo-chamber pieties come dribbling from your keyboard. Oops, I'm getting snide again. Ah. I'm comparable to the North Koreans and Iranians. Question . . . why would, or should, the corridors of a magazine with a particular political/philosophical/ideological viewpoint feature a lot of political diversity? (It's a separate argument, but anyone who reads the Corner or NRO knows, you'll actually find quite a bit of diverse opinions at National Review on immigration reform, war and peace, democracy promotion, gay marriage, free trade or protectionism, where government ought to be cut, how much of a deficit is acceptable in relation to GDP . . .) As for the diversity of the nearest topless bar . . . just how diverse are they? Wouldn't you mostly find . . . a lot of strippers and guys who pay money to watch women take their clothes off? When you think of that strip club, is your first thought, "My, what social, intellectual, political and religious diversity I see around me?" "Snooki is exactly what freedom looks like." Good to see the Orange Revolution isn't dead. Depicted above: "Freedom." Boehner to Obama: I Guess You Were Out Golfing While We Prepared for the Sequester I know the consensus among the grassroots is that House speaker John Boehner is gutless, but every once in a while, we do see him twist the knife. A recent letter to Ohioans: The White House announced today that White House tours are being canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration. While I'm disappointed the White House has chosen to comply with sequestration by cutting public tours, I'm pleased to assure you that public tours of the United States Capitol will continue.  Under the leadership of the House officers and their teams, who oversee daily operations in the Capitol in consultation with the Office of the Speaker, planning for the possibility of sequestration has been underway for some time.  Consequently, alternative spending reductions have been implemented within the Capitol complex to ensure public tours and other regular activities can proceed as they normally would. Not-so-subtle subtext: We've got our act together, unlike the guy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. 'Snowquester,' the Most Overhyped Menace Since . . . Well, the Sequester, Actually Senator Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, has some fun with our nation's capital: "View from DC, where the fed gov't is closed down due to . . . snow. Well, at least we aren't blaming the sequester." ADDENDUM: Charlie Cooke, again: "Eating chocolate during a filibuster against domestic drone executions is pretty much the greatest thing I've ever seen in the Senate." Get all the latest news, 24/7, at www.NationalReview.com Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Conservatives – stay healthy! Get plenty of Vitamin Sea on the next National Review cruise. Visit www.NRCruise.com for complete information. National Review, Inc. Remove your email address from our list. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: National Review, Inc. 215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 555