Friday, November 30, 2012

Justin Amash on the Rand Paul Amendment

Dan Cotter emails:

Do you think Rand Paul supporter's heads will explode when one of their own, Justin Amash, is calling out the Rand sponsored amendment for allowing indefinite detention of American citizens? 

'The heart of the Feinstein amendment:

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, UNLESS AN ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES SUCH DETENTION."

Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA, which renders the rest of the Feinstein amendment meaningless.' 


Either Rand Paul is so ignorant of politics he doesn't realize that the amendment he sponsored 
will be used to authorize indefinite detention, or he is lying through his teeth like a typical 
politician. Amash and Rand can't both be right.

32 comments:

  1. Will my Rand Paul-supporting head explode...? Nope. In fact, I couldn't be happier (well, I could, but this is a start). I'm a big fan of both Paul and Amash. Yes, Rand is imperfect, but I expect perfection from no politician and anyone who does is a moron. Having people like Rand and Amash out there to call out the rest of their colleagues is a great step in the right direction. Having these two keep each other honest and point out their own flaws is a sign of progress as well. Keep hating Wenzel, it seems to be the only thing you're any good at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imperfect? The guy just sponsored an amendment by Feinstein that will allow indefinite detention of American citizens! Then he goes around acting like he just saved the constitution. WTF does he have to do before you stop and think, "Hey, maybe Wenzel is right to hold Rand's feet to the fire"?

      This isn't some trivial point. Lindsey Graham and John McCain both supported this amendment and voted for it because it allows indefinite detention. For Rand to be running victory laps over this is disgusting. If him erroneously claiming he saved the constitution by getting an amendment passed that will allow indefinite detention of American citizens doesn't get you to distrust this guy, then nothing will. At this point it is hard to see how you are different than the liberals who defend Obama over the NDAA because "he's not perfect."

      Delete
    2. Forget it, cotterdan.

      He's a worshiper of Rand Paul just like the other apologists, not a libertarian. That's why they can't stand criticism of their hero. There is virtually nothing Rand could do that will have them think twice.

      He could declare war and they'd still say "uuuh... Yeah he is for killing thousands, but he's still better than the rest. Yay Rand."

      Delete
    3. Yeah, it's kind of like saying, well I at least we got Pol Pot as opposed to Joseph Stalin. Yeah Pol Pot is killing 2 million people but at least he didn't kill 20 million like Stalin.

      Tortured logic.

      Delete
    4. You all act like Rand Paul somehow knew he was being tricked ahead of time. Almost all of us who read the bill BEFORE it passed thought it would stop indefinite detention.

      The elite then came out afterwards and told us it was "already expressly authorized" as required by this bill. That was not the intention of the bill.

      But go ahead and keep worshiping Ron while pretending Ron doesn't support what Rand is doing. That's the real insanity going on here! I hate people saying he betrayed Ron, it's hilarious.

      I'm a Texan and met Ron and my father worked with in back in '88. I can guarantee you that Ron is fully aware of how realpolitik works he just chose to be the messenger, but wants Rand to be the workhorse who actually gets elected by the mainstream.

      And you can't do that if you refuse to nominate the nominee, which I can GUARANTEE you Ron is not "upset" about that. If anything Ron was a bit too weak hearted to tell his supporters it was over back in March and kept stringing them along for months when he knew it was over.

      Delete
    5. @Jonathan: What Ron Paul might think of what Rand Paul is doing at a given moment is irrelevant; where you live is irrelevant; for whom your father worked "back in '88" is irrelevant. The relevant question is: "Does this amendment provide a significant check on executive power?"

      And what, precisely, do you mean by getting "elected by the mainstream"? Do you mean trimming, temporizing and compromising to the point that one becomes acceptable to the arbiters of public opinion and to a largely ignorant electorate? Does this mean becoming just another, *mainstream* politician, then? If so, what's the point in the end? If you mean something else entirely, please explain.

      Delete
  2. Wow, that is disappointing -- but on the bright side at least Amash is calling Paul out for his pretense. Mr. Wenzel, what you think of Justin and how does he compare to Ron Paul in the positions he holds? I don't remember seeing much or any commentary from you about Amash, but perhaps I missed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't anyone here want to give Rand the benefit of the doubt? Even all the legal analysts were saying this would protect our rights, it was only until after it passed, a few schmucks in Congress then decided what "expressly authorized" meant, and changed it to include the bills previously passed, (it could be read another way, that is to say Congress would have to expressly authorize each individual detention which of course would make it far less likely anyone is detained indefinitely).

      Delete
    2. Let me know when Rand Paul retracts his statements claiming victory, and acknowledges that the amendment will be used to justify indefinite detention of American citizens. Once he does that I'll consider giving him the benefit of the doubt on this. I don't trust any politician, besides Ron Paul, but I can appreciate Amash warning people about the problems with the amendment.

      Rand should've realised that the bill was not adequate when he saw it was written by the elitist Feinstein, and be supported by people like Graham and McCain because they said it will allow indefinite detention. I agree with you that if the amendment would've been more carefully worded then it wouldn't have passed, but that is just more reason for Rand to use his filibuster threat to get a vote on an amendment that would have completely neutered the NDAA. Even though that kind of amendment would've failed just like a more carefully worded one that only eliminated indefinite detention, at least the press he got would have been helping to educate people on why the whole thing needs to go. Instead we are left with a bill that the people in charge of enforcing it are arguing has now been strengthened, and most non-libertarians weren't presented with an argument on why it all must go.

      Delete
  3. 2012 NDAA did not EXPRESSLY authorize indefinite detention. It IMPLICITLY did by removing the restriction from use against citizens in one section that it EXPLICITLY restricted in another section. By rules one statutory construction, one could IMPLY that Congress intended US Citizens to be targets by their OMISSION.

    So the amendment is meaningful and does but of course it could be better. It opens the door for future EXPRESS acts of Congress to re-instate Indefinite Detention of Citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uhh, it seems to me from the language that an Act of Congress is needed in each SPECIFIC case of detention. I think Amash is reading this incorrectly, to be honest. The language is not written plurally, but individually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! That's how Rand designed it!

      However, I agree that the elite later found a loophole and are trying (desperately) to exploit it. But Rand did not design it nor was he aware of it when he supported it.

      If these guys attacking Rand were in Congress they'd of fell for it too. Rand will probably be more cautious with how he words things in the future, but then again, if the elite didn't see that loophole they'd probably have blocked the bill.

      Delete
  5. Bmorebrawler and anon, even if Justin Amash is technically wrong, the amendment is written in such a way that it will be interpreted to give them that power. Lindsey Graham and John McCain both voted for the amendment because they said it DID authorize indefinite detention. This is why Justin Amash is right to denounce this bill because there is nothing to stop the president from reading it the same way as McCain, Graham, and many others. Rand Paul just ran victory laps on passing an amendment that he'd have to be a complete moron not to realize will be interpreted to give the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To me, the most obvious interpretation is in favor of opponents of indefinite detention of Citizens, INCLUDING ITS AUTHORS.

    The Author's word compared to ramblings of a few tag-alongs will prevail in determining the INTENT of the new provisions.

    Of course this is not as good as Rand's Amendment and is imperfect, like I said. A biased court could wrongly decide the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what you are saying is the president can indefinitely detain American citizens, and unless the courts rule against him, this will not stop. That is exactly where we are at without the amendment. And that makes Rand's victory dance even more deplorable.

      Delete
    2. Actually that's always the case. The Courts interpret and apply the law. It is called "Judicial Review". The President could almost as easily say a more obvious ban on his "right" to indefinitely detain Americans is itself unconstitutional. He actually did say this re: 2012 NDAA. He said he didn't need the NDAA to authorize him to detain indefinitely because that right was inherent in the war power.

      Delete
    3. OK, if that is your view then you should agree that Rand running victory laps, claiming to have saved the constitution, is a typical BS political move. You agree that his amendment doesn't prevent the president from indefinitely detaining people, and that the matter will be decided in the courts, so what am I missing here?

      You could argue that while this Rand Paul sponsored bill doesn't prevent indefinite detention, it brings awareness to the issue, but that doesn't explain his dubious claim of this amendment preventing indefinite detention, and it doesn't explain why he wouldn't have filibustered until he got a vote on an amendment that would've stripped the NDAA of all of its power. He shouldn't be going around misleading people that this amendment protects anyone, and he should have used the attention he has gotten to make a more substantive critique.

      Based on everything you have said in this thread I am having trouble understanding how you wouldn't agree with me on these points.

      Delete
    4. The point is that the President would be a criminal if he violated the will of Congress by indefinitely detaining Americans and it is obviously an impeachable defense. Also the Supreme Court could enjoin the President from doing it by applying the law. It is relevant to the Supreme Court under the Youngstown Sheet cases that the President is probably acting outside of his implied powers when he acts in direct opposition to Congress.

      Rand Paul and this bill did what the Senate has the Constitutional power to do to stop the President from indefinitely detaining Americans. They passed legislation. If the President ignores it then he should be impeached. There is a very real chance that the President will follow the law.

      Considering that if this bill passes the House Congress' position will have changed from "indefinitely detain Americans without trial" to "You can't indefinitely detain Americans until we say so" and all the above implications that that entails, I'd say its a victory.

      Delete
    5. The president has already committed impeachable offenses, but the congress did absolutely nothing about it. If you think there is any chance that the congress would impeach Obama for indefinitely detaining American citizens then you are being very naive. Plus, numerous people, whether supporters of indefinite detention like McCain and Graham or opponents like Amash, are out there saying this amendment allows the president to do this.

      The fact is that Obama will make the same arguments as Amash to defend his ability to indefinitely detain people. If he uses this power there is zero chance that he will be impeached. It will then come down to the government courts. Rand Paul didn't prevent the president from doing this, he won't impeach him if he does it, and he shouldn't be misleading people into believing that Americans are now safe.

      Delete
    6. Maybe you're unaware but 99.9% of what the Senate passes is total tyranny and oppression. When something breaks that mold we should be heartened.

      Here is my position:

      1. This is a victory worth celebrating.

      2. There is clearly more work to be done.

      If Rand Paul said something to the effect of "its all over go back to bed" then you would be right. After all the House hasn't even proposed similar legislation. But all legislators can do is pass laws, you know that. I am not some Rand Paul worshiper but I am a lawyer and I think we need a sense of perspective here. Furthermore Rand's amendment was 10x better than the Feinstein one but lets face it Rand's wouldn't have passed simply because it was from Rand IMO.

      Delete
    7. That's the thing, I don't think it broke the mold. I've seen how politicians interpret the bills they pass, and I'm not naive enough to not realise that the interpretation of John McCain will be the one used by the people with the power to indefinitely detain people. Your intrepretation of the amendment means nothing when you aren't in a position to enforce it.

      The way I see it is we have an amendment that will be interpreted to allow indefinite detention by TPTB. If Obama uses that power there is no chance he will be impeached. We both agree that the courts will end up deciding the constitutionality of indefinite detention of American citizens. So what are we supposed to be celebrating? Unless you believe that the congress will impeach Obama if he detains Americans because of this amendment, I have no idea what you are celebrating.

      The reason I'm not celebrating is because I think this amendment accomplished nothing, Rand missed an opportunity to use his filibuster threat to educate people on the NDAA being wrong in its entirety, and he is running victory laps over an amendment that changes nothing as far as restraining the president.

      Delete
    8. That's the thing, I don't think it broke the mold. I've seen how politicians interpret the bills they pass, and I'm not naive enough to not realise that the interpretation of John McCain will be the one used by the people with the power to indefinitely detain people. Your intrepretation of the amendment means nothing when you aren't in a position to enforce it.

      The way I see it is we have an amendment that will be interpreted to allow indefinite detention by TPTB. If Obama uses that power there is no chance he will be impeached. We both agree that the courts will end up deciding the constitutionality of indefinite detention of American citizens. So what are we supposed to be celebrating? Unless you believe that the congress will impeach Obama if he detains Americans because of this amendment, I have no idea what you are celebrating.

      The reason I'm not celebrating is because I think this amendment accomplished nothing, Rand missed an opportunity to use his filibuster threat to educate people on the NDAA being wrong in its entirety, and he is running victory laps over an amendment that changes nothing as far as restraining the president.

      Delete
    9. You expectations of what the US Senate can and cant do are unrealistic, plain as that. I already showed you why the amendment repealed NDAA. Ultimately ANY statute can be misinterpreted or ignored as unconstitutional.

      Delete
  7. Mike Lee explained it fairly well http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/11/clarifying-the-feinstein-lee-amendment-to-protect-americans-against-indefinite-detention

    ReplyDelete
  8. I like Amash, but he is no Rand Paul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this instance, much to his credit.

      Delete
  9. EPJ will be eating crow when Ron Paul endorses Rand Paul for president in 2015.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would that change anything? Just because you believe Ron Paul is infallible doesn't mean everybody else does.

      Delete
    2. Hardly. Ron Paul has my utmost respect; but he is not God Almighty. He can make mistakes. And if he does, those who value liberty over personality cultism will not hesitate to go their own ways. After all, not everyone wants or needs a Dear Leader to tell them when to jump and how high; and I suspect that the good doctor himself would be utterly horrified to discover that somehow is awaiting jumping instructions from him.

      Delete
    3. Ron Paul has my respect. But I'm not going to endorse Rand just because Ron does. So no crow here. Remain blind if you like. Rand can suck it for all I care.

      Delete
  10. The fact is the text *can* be construed in the manner posited by Amash and others, and in time it *will*; for wherever ambiguity exists in law, governments take license. This is axiomatic. Note also the conspicuous omission of US citizens living, working or traveling abroad in this amendment. As a check on executive power it is meaningless.

    Anyone reading the amendment with a modicum of care and reflection can spot its obvious defects. Rand Paul has no excuse for backing this entirely empty gesture---and even less for celebrating it. If he was indeed "tricked" into backing it, as a poster above has suggested, then he is a rare fool.

    And fool he may be. But the grotesque contortions he has undergone in an attempt to straddle the gulf between the liberty movement and the mainstream---including tsk-tsking over US involvement in Syria even as he supports new acts of war against Iran---mark him as something even worse: a typical politician.

    Why some self-avowed liberty activists persist in their infatuation with this hollow man is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete