Writes Senator Rand Paul at National
Review:
Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement
of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters
wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to
them when they went astray.
The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple:
Yes, strongly. Every time.
I have always done what I believe and I have never been
blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the
USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to
end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party’s official
budget because it didn’t cut enough spending.
I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war
in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war
before that in Iraq.
I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship
— or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil
liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside
the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on
federalism issues.
I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least
of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama.
Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar
deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold
is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into
destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two
candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with
their assessments.
Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as
I would like is foreign policy.
Let’s first be clear: President Obama was
elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by
me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the
Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly.
He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into
unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking
Congressional approval whatsoever.
I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes
President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is
mistaken.
I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more
acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent
statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us
to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact
words were:
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will
have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if
necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t
believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval
or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity
now.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and
Congress in declaring war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that
has the power to declare war, not the president…
Even if the president believes he has such authority, the
War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval
within 60 days of conflict.
No president is above the law or above the Constitution…
I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any
president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional
consent.
Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment