[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS BLAST RAND PAUL FOR NATIONAL EMERGENCY OPPOSITION: 'NEW JOHN MCCAIN'
Source: Newsweek
URL Source: https://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-donald-trump-supporters-1351374
Published: Mar 4, 2019
Author: BENJAMIN FEARNOW
Post Date: 2019-03-04 17:02:59 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 406
Comments: 7

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's decision not to back President Donald Trump's border-based national emergency exposed a growing rift in the Republican Party— between those who profess extreme loyalty to Trump and those whose ultimate devotion is to the U.S. Constitution.

Diehard Trump supporters lashed out at the libertarian-leaning Republican senator after he announced over the weekend he would oppose Trump's emergency declaration, guaranteeing the president would have to veto the congressional resolution to rescind the declaration. Paul explained that he could not support the unnecessary expansion of presidential power over a U.S. border fight he does not consider to be an emergency.

While some conservatives such as radio host Erick Erickson have applauded the move, many pro-Trump Republicans are railing against him as a "hypocrite" and a "traitor" to the party of Trump.

Paul received praise from many Constitution-minded conservatives, but Trump supporters used vitriolic language and ridiculed him as "the new John McCain," a reference to the late senator's refusal to back the GOP's 2017 Obamacare repeal.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's decision not to back President Donald Trump's national emergency exposed a growing rift in Republican Party between those who support Trump and those who support the U.S. Constitution. SCREENSHOT: RAND PAUL FACEBOOK

Paul penned a Sunday evening opinion piece for Fox News explaining his reason for "stand[ing] up for the Constitution" and voting against what he sees as Trump's abuse of executive power. Paul reiterated that his purist intention to protect the U.S. Constitution trumped his loyalty to the Republican Party.

The son of perhaps the country's most famous libertarian, Ron Paul, asked conservatives to remember how they felt when President Barack Obama used executive actions. Paul cautioned, "I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama."

"I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security," Paul wrote for Fox News. "However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate."

Paul quoted Trump's own Twitter criticism of Obama at the time to expose the GOP hypocrisy: "Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

"Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

The president's supporters and loudest social media advocates immediately pounced on the Kentucky senator, labeling him a coward.

"Phony constitutionalist Rand Paul. Pathetic," popular Fox News and radio host Mark Levin posted to Twitter and Facebook Monday.

"Apparently Rand Paul is unclear on the National Emergencies Act. I suggest he spend less time in front of the cameras and more time understanding the law. P.S., Does Rand Paul ever do anything positive for America or does he just stop others from doing anything positive?" tweeted YourVoice America host Bill Mitchell.

Top commentary from Paul's official Facebook pages illustrated widespread contempt for his decision to oppose Trump's border-based national emergency. Several Kentucky constituents threatened not to vote him in for another Senate term, and others blasted him as a "RINO," or Republican In Name Only.

As a fellow Kentuckian. This in fact is an emergency! In multiple ways. And this is gonna lose you A LOT of votes. Mine is one of them," a Murray, Kentucky, native wrote on Paul's official Facebook page Monday.

"STAND WITH THE PRESIDENT! I very strong [sic] disagree with you on this ! Republicans are why we are having such battle now with far left. The republican people who voted you in will not vote for you again for the stand against the wall," wrote one irate fan of Paul's U.S. Senate page.

"He is absolutely wrong! He of all people should understand National Security! We have been invaded!" wrote an Arlington, Virginia, fan of Paul's page.

Conservative radio host Erick Erickson came to Paul's defense, writing on his The Resurgent website his support for the Kentucky senator's "principled stand" in the face of partisan politics. Paul also received reinforcement from many others on his social media pages, with those supporting his decision labeling the pro-Trumpers "Constitution tramplers" and "statists," and even referencing the blind loyalty Adolf Hitler received in Nazi Germany.

"Good for you, Rand. The statists are going to attack you, but ignore them," wrote one supporter of Paul's decision. "After all, they are the same people who sat quiet as government transgressed its authority and produced over $22 trillion in debt."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's decision not to back President Donald Trump'

I am shocked, I tell you....SHOCKED!

Gatlin  posted on  2019-03-04   17:05:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Gatlin (#1)

I am shocked, I tell you....SHOCKED!

Stop clutching your pearls.

OTOH, I am proud of Rand Paul. He is being consistent about executive power, much as his father was when he was in Congress. I don't think this will cost Rand Paul any support. And he won't run again until 2022.

Whether it dies in the Senate or Trump has to (gasp) issue his first veto, it's still just a resolution. It doesn't alter the legal authority under which Trump is declaring an emergency. And it is still more likely some leftwing judge (Ninth Circus, I'm looking at you) will issue injunctions against Trump taking any real action. We've seen that movie before.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-03-04   17:54:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Gatlin, Obama shill (#1)

And now.... THE FACTS


By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.

I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.

I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?  As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready.  That was wrong.  Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama.  They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.


Hondo68  posted on  2019-03-04   18:04:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#2)

I am proud of Rand Paul.

I am shocked, I tell you....SHOCKED!

Gatlin  posted on  2019-03-04   18:08:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Gatlin (#4)

I am shocked, I tell you....SHOCKED!

Maybe you missed your nap.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-03-04   18:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)

Maybe you missed your nap.

What I am missing is seeing the logic behind Rand Paul’s action to join with the Dims.

Gatlin  posted on  2019-03-04   18:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Gatlin (#0)

Rand has been bushwhacked once too often.

randge  posted on  2019-03-04   20:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com