Sen. Paul (R-KY) introduces needed bill to limit use of unmanned military planes by domestic law enforcement
The constitutionally informed should have no problem when the Commander-in-Chief commands those for whom he is chief to kill Bin Ladens in Pakistan with Navy Seals on the ground or even American citizen al-Harethis levying war against their own country in Yemen with un-manned drone aircraft. The President has broad, inherent chief executive power to repel the enemies of America, no matter where located, and even in the absence of specific congressional authorization much less a formal declaration of war against a specific nation. In the case of the War on Terror, both the current and former presidents that have served since September 11, 2001 have had the added benefit of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force bill passed by a bi-partisan House and Senate.
But much different rules apply to domestic law enforcement across the Fruited Plain where the U.S. Constitution protects Liberty writ large via a government limited to only reasonable searches and seizures:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Kentucky’s junior Senator Rand Paul understands that even a non-living constitution applies to new technology, and, just in case a President (that issues edicts making illegal aliens legal, even after the co-equal legislative branch rejects such legal changes) doesn’t understand the limits of his power, he has introduced A Bill (S. 3287):
Bill, Hillary and Barack: Unacceptably liberal peas in rotten Democrat pod
The only split in the patronage party is over who runs it, not their shared failed policy goals
Question: Does Bill Clinton help Republican chances more when he praises Romney’s “sterling” record at Bain Capital and argues for extending the Bush tax cuts for just one more year or when he backtracks after trips to the Michelle/AxlerodChicago Way woodshed?
Given the elected Democrats turned Bain defenders, including former President Clinton, together with his additional jabs at Obama’s spending, debt and a double dip recession-in-the-making, Republicans are invited to believe there is a split in the party of FDR and the New Deal coalition? Why, because the last president re-elected as a Democrat bears a grudge against an “amateur” that beat his wife in 2008? Because given the LBJ Medicare/Obama Obamacare, yet failed presidencies, paradigm, by all rights Barack should have declined the 2012 nomination and cleared the way for Hillary?