-
It’s Not Just the IRS
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing
May 17, 2013 | 9 comments
-
UPDATED: Deputy AG Being Set Up to Take the Fall
May 15, 2013 | 15 comments
-
IRS Tried to Stymie the Growth of the Tea Party
May 15, 2013 | 4 comments
-
The IRS Scandal Explodes
May 14, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
First, let me join Ross in applauding our own Aaron Goldstein for blogging about his opposition to Rand Paul’s filibuster. It’s not easy to take a position on something when everyone else on the website feels otherwise. And he’s right about one thing: what Paul did was political theater with an eye on the election calendar. That doesn’t invalidate the substance, and I don’t think Aaron says it does.
Reid and Ross have already written responses to Aaron. In the interest of not piling on, I’ll only address the part involving me:
Now Matt Purple makes a valid point when he says that Holder probably could have stopped Paul’s filibuster if he had come out and said that President Obama is not authorized to drop drones on American citizens going about their business on American soil.
But let’s be honest for a minute. Did Paul honestly think for even a second that Eric Holder actually believed President Obama thought he had the authority to wantonly drop drones in the middle of Kentucky? If he did then he’s even kookier than his Dad. But methinks the younger Paul does not honestly believe President Obama plans to drop drones on U.S. citizens on a whim. He’s much savvier than that.
Fair enough. But constitutions and laws don’t exist just to guard against threats in the here-and-now. One of the organizing principles of a constitutional republic is that human beings aren’t angels, as Madison said, and therefore government power must be checked, balanced, and limited to guard against any hypothetical abuse that could arise in the future. Eric Holder isn’t going to order a drone strike on an innocent U.S. citizen. But by not clearly answering Paul’s question, he risked setting a precedent for a future administration more inclined towards horrific abuse.
This may sound outlandish. But the entirety of world history is littered with examples of leaders abusing their military authority. Given how much executive power has grown over the past 12 years, and the enormous technological potential provided by drones, why shouldn’t we demand that an attorney general set the right precedent by clearly stating he’ll follow the law? This seems worth 13 hours of our time.
David Frum, he who spent the first half of his professional career casting anti-war conservatives out of the movement and writing a book titled An End to Evil, and spent the second half of his professional career lecturing conservatives for being too exclusionary and grandiose, took Aaron’s legitimate point to a sneering extreme on Twitter:
I feel so much freer now that Rand Paul has got administration to forswear a totally fictional plan to kill Americans with drones.
— davidfrum (@davidfrum) March 8, 2013
My question for Eric Holder: what about all the OTHER things you’re not doing? When will you promise not to do THEM?
— davidfrum (@davidfrum) March 8, 2013
Ah, now there’s a pole against which to lean the political philosophy of western civilization! For example, Eric Holder isn’t currently throwing people in prison for speaking out against the government. So why should he have to say he’ll uphold the First Amendment? Eric Holder also isn’t leading an army of brigands down Constitution Avenue in an attempt to occupy the Capitol building. So by all means, let him waffle on the separation of powers!
We bind our government with laws because people in charge have a tendency of abusing power. Paul’s filibuster was a matter of principle, not policy, and it was worth it.
Connection Not Compromise| 3.8.13 @ 3:30PM
"Did Paul honestly think for even a second that Eric Holder actually believed President Obama thought he had the authority to wantonly drop drones in the middle of Kentucky?" -- Aaron
No. However, after listening to John McCain add insult to injury by calling his fellow Republicans ("Rand Paul, Cruz, Amish, whoever") "wackos," I'm not so sure that McCain wouldn't.
For the first time in recent memory, Republicans in the Senate actually stood up this administration and, at least on paper, the administration backed down. Contrast this with McCain's slavish handling of Mrs. Clinton's Benghazi hearing.
With friends like this who needs enemies?
It is time for McCain to resign in disgrace and go home. Maybe someone who actually cares about liberty will take his place.
Woodrow| 3.8.13 @ 3:32PM
Those were the good ole days when David Frum was a conservative. A good writer who could be counted on to turn out good stuff. What happened to him? He's married to Danielle Crittenden, who is with Huffington Post, Canada. He's certainly not become liberal, but how about tainted?
JP| 3.8.13 @ 4:16PM
David Frum has always looked out for David Frum. He was the first Bush speech writer to jump ship in order to get a fat book deal.
And if the wind begins to pick up from the Left, you could always count on David Frum to tack accordingly.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.13 @ 4:01PM
Look, Holder is a swine, as is Brennan. Neither of them give a damn about protecting this country's citizens from terrorists, and both are worthless swine.
Nonetheless, tying Holder's hands from launching a drone strike if he has actionable intelligence that would prevent an Oklahoma City bombing is NOT where I would draw the Constitutional line.
I am impressed athat Paul voted against Brannan's confirmation. He should have done that with Hagel, as well.
The basic problem with Rand, which he shares to a lesser degree than his dad, but which he does share, is that he is squishy soft on Islamic threats to the USA, and foreign threats in general.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.13 @ 4:01PM
Sorry, I meant to say "worthless scum."
C Bowen | 3.8.13 @ 7:57PM
Now you are pro-Holder?
Didn't Holder have an angle on the OKC bombing as revealed in FOIA documents?
Senator Paul disagrees with the Republican Establishment and the Obama administration on sending arms to radical jihadists (e.g. Syria) to topple regimes friendly to Christians, Israel, and the West in general, just for the record.
Wait, you are the one who wants to drop nuclear bombs on the Islamic world and enslave the survivors, right?
JP| 3.8.13 @ 4:14PM
I don't suppose Aaron or David Frum ever heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge.
C Bowen | 3.8.13 @ 8:00PM
Aaron is a red diaper baby from Canada with absolutely no links to the American conservatives; he has no idea what you are talking about.
At this late date, one has to assume this socialist, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, has a mommy or a daddy who sent a large donation check to AmSpec.
Butch| 3.8.13 @ 4:32PM
If you read these threads, a number of people are becoming alarmed at what appears to be the government preparing itself against a citizen insurrection. If this is true, it means the government itself anticipates at least a certain probability that it will incite that reaction by its planned actions. It is the most heartening thing I have seen in a long time to see Senator Paul evoke from the administration at least the most obvious admission of citizen sovereignty from this administration.
Mike W| 3.8.13 @ 4:37PM
Why, why why, are you giving any time tio what David Frum thinks? That jerk has had no crediblity since he basically said anyone opposed to the Iraq war was essentially an Al Queada operative. An anti-American, Osama wannabe. That clown has nothing to say that I want to hear. He is useless in modern discouse.
Regarding killing of Americans with drones - the Patriot Act might already allow it. Conseratives opposed it it's passage post 9/11 had the foresight to know that restrictive laws like that can come back to bite you when your side loses power.
Dai Alanye | 3.9.13 @ 6:08PM
Any American who favors or is even the slightest bit agnostic about any enhancement whatsoever of Obama's power is a fool. Sure, the administration doesn't today propose unrestricted warfare upon dissident Americans within the U S, but give them time. After all, Holder has Janet Reno for an example.