Report: Rand Paul to introduce bill nullifying Obama’s executive orders on guns

posted at 8:51 pm on January 16, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, a teaser for his appearance on “Hannity” later tonight. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that a guy who just visited Israel and is now talking about blocking executive overreach on gun-grabbing just might be running for president in 2016.

The bill will go nowhere but conservatives will appreciate the gesture:

“I’m told Sen. Rand Paul will introduce language within hours, within hours, to call for the nullification and prohibition of funding for the president’s executive actions announced today and possibly even using the federal courts to nullify and defund some of the things that he plans on doing,” [Fox News host Eric] Bolling said.

[A] Capitol Hill source told TheDC that Paul’s legislation is expected to do three things: nullify Obama’s executive orders, defund them and ask the Senate to file a court challenge to them.

At the very least, if he can figure out a way to bring this to the floor, it’ll be fun to see how Democrats whose seats are up next year will vote on it. Word on the Hill is that Reid might not even force a vote on the assault-weapons ban lest it prove too difficult for red-state Dems’ reelection campaigns. (According to a CNN poll released today, the recent surge of support for gun control is already starting to fade.) Will Mark Begich? Mary Landrieu? Heidi Heitkamp? Watch the video of her below from a local newscast yesterday (via the Washington Free Beacon) not only sounding sour on Obama’s gun recommendations but going so far as to accuse the White House of having an agenda unrelated to school shootings. Which, of course, is true.

Exit question: How many doctors are really going to follow the White House’s recommendations to talk to their patients about gun safety? I know they do get intrusive on occasion, and it’s a legit topic in the case of a patient who seems genuinely mental, but doctors must realize what a hot button this subject is for many people. Why risk alienating a patient and having him take his business elsewhere by trying to have “the talk” with him about guns? How many doctors know enough about guns themselves to even have that talk? This seems like a golden example of the White House floating an idea that sounds conscientious — it isn’t, it’s just the AMA’s attempt to leach some extra federal money — but which will be roundly ignored. The nicest thing that can be said for it is that it’s not remotely the most laughworthy recommendation offered by Obama this morning.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I think the Left assumes they’ve bought the US government; therefore, it’s their property and not ‘yours’, is how they respond.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I’ve had a Democrat activist actually say this to me.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Go Perry

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Did you read his entire response? It was a thing of beauty.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

I am liking him more and more every day. Sadly Rubio keeps dropping on my list.

The Notorious G.O.P on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 PM

There is something about Rubio that is fishy to me. I can’t quite put my finger on it but something doesn’t add up for me.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I have the same impression. In many ways Jeb Bush causes similar uneasiness… as though somehow they know better what’s best for us than we do.

viking01 on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I agree with all of you there.

Rubio, unfortunately, does appear to be miming the Jeb Bush views and it’s cause to question his credibility.

Rubio would’ve been far more credible on the long term had he never been known to be “a Jeb Bush mentee.” But a mentee he has been if not still is…leads to a sense of insecurity about him.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

*cool not cook

CW on January 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Rand’s new tag line?

Bmore on January 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Go Perry

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Did you read his entire response? It was a thing of beauty.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Yes, yes it was (Perry’s statement, a thing of beauty)…

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

There’s no “fight” there.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 PM

I am liking him more and more every day. Sadly Rubio keeps dropping on my list.

The Notorious G.O.P on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 PM

There is something about Rubio that is fishy to me. I can’t quite put my finger on it but something doesn’t add up for me.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM

It just hit me: Revelation! Obummer is the first beast and Rubio is the second beast!!

Rev. 13:
3 The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf…

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM

I think the Left assumes they’ve bought the US government; therefore, it’s their property and not ‘yours’, is how they respond.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I’ve had a Democrat activist actually say this to me.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Hmmm…though I’ ve never had a Democrat say that to me, specifically, it’s my conclusion after knowing many a Democrat as to their assumption, presumption, as to their belief they own govt and the rest of us are some intolerable scum-class that they’re barely able to tolerate if at all.

Known many, many a Democrat who believes that, inhabits that.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM

I’ll give the Rand folks some credit. They email the heII out of me!

Bmore on January 16, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Me too. This guy feels the pulse of conservative America. The rest of the GOP don’t seem to know or care where the pulse is.

rrpjr on January 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM

It’s great that he is doing this, but where are the others? Where’s the rest of the GOP on this?

sharrukin on January 16, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Cowering under their beds, if not making backroom deals with Demoncrats.

I’m having a good sneer at the D-grade Zionists who spent decades acting like Alex Jones disciples toward Rand’s father. Now they can only sit and gnash their buck teeth while he acts…and basically the entire rest of the GOP sits on their fat fannies.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 9:09 PM

!!

@MelonCollie: “Zionists”?

Rand Paul is a different person from his father and most criticism of his father, Rand Paul, was/is realistic.

But referring to critics of Rand Paul as “Zionists” and denigrating them? Really? I mean, REALLY?

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Thank you Rand Paul for doing something! God bless you!

JellyToast on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Known many, many a Democrat who believes that, inhabits that.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Absolutely.

This guy is heavily invested in Democrat politics and fund raising in New York City. Bragged to me a few years back that he and some of his “pals” were responsible for Shaheen (first woman Democrat governor of New Hampshire) getting elected.

I usually let him run off at the mouth and don’t engage him on his terms. He likes to employ the same tactics Joe Biden used on Paul Ryan so there’s seldom a chance for a substantive discussion but he says a lot of revealing things.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Stop the g-damned auto replay on the videos!

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it!

petefrt on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Yes GG I read it; now here is hoping Ted Cruz comes out with a statement…I’d like to hear what he thinks on this!

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

There’s no “fight” there.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 PM

On a personal level, Rubio’s too “metrosexual” or girly for my tastes. Maybe that’s what you mean by “no fight there”. But I find him a decent man with decent ideas, overall, but just a tad too malleable such that he comes off as not entirely sincere or credible (already explained that).

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Did you read his entire response? It was a thing of beauty.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Pulitzer worthy. I’ve disagreed with Perry on some issues over the years, but when it comes to the 2A, you don’t eff with him on that one.

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Meh. Like his dad, he’s excellent on some things, but less so on others. Although he’s much better than his dad.

I enthusiastically support his position on Obama-scum’s gun crap. But he’s soft on his support for Israel. I agree with him that “foreign aid” should be eliminated either entirely or almost entirely. It serves no purpose in current times. And there are even some Israeli analysts that think Israel would benefit ultimately from an absence of US financial aid.

But his foreign policy ideas whether it comes to Israel or anywhere else otherwise still sound overall to be misguided and isolationist to me. We need an aggressive foreign policy and military posture.

At least the dude’s got nads though on domestic issues. No one else in the GOP does.

WhatSlushfund on January 16, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Absolutely.

This guy is heavily invested in Democrat politics and fund raising in New York City. Bragged to me a few years back that he and some of his “pals” were responsible for Shaheen (first woman Democrat governor of New Hampshire) getting elected.

I usually let him run off at the mouth and don’t engage him on his terms. He likes to employ the same tactics Joe Biden used on Paul Ryan so there’s seldom a chance for a substantive discussion but he says a lot of revealing things.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

It’s the same general standard, so-called, present in L.A.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I think the Left assumes they’ve bought the US government; therefore, it’s their property and not ‘yours’, is how they respond.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

This can be applied to tax cuts also when the left is always going on about how tax cuts need to be paid for and how unpaid tax cuts are a cause of the huge deficits.

supernova on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

now here is hoping Ted Cruz comes out with a statement…I’d like to hear what he thinks on this!

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Here ya go.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights–the ‘palladium of the liberties of a republic,’ as Justice Joseph Story put it–and I intend to help lead the fight in the U.S. Senate to preserve our individual right to keep and bear arms.

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

CORRECTION FOLLOWS…

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 9:09 PM

!!

@MelonCollie: “Zionists”?

Rand Paul is a different person from his father and most criticism of his father, Rand Paul RON PAUL, was/is realistic.

But referring to critics of Rand Paul as “Zionists” and denigrating them? Really? I mean, REALLY?

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Auto play on videos is one sure way to drive people away from HA. As soon as I find a thread with auto-play on the video, I leave it.

People following HA in office cubicles do the same, of course.

Stupid is as stupid does.

petefrt on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 PM

On a personal level, Rubio’s too “metrosexual” or girly for my tastes. Maybe that’s what you mean by “no fight there”. But I find him a decent man with decent ideas, overall, but just a tad too malleable such that he comes off as not entirely sincere or credible (already explained that).

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Not really. I mean, none of them seem even the least bit angered by what’s going on. They all seem to think they’re going to address these excesses and Constitutional abuses through the normal deliberative electoral process.

Paul at least seems angry about it. I mean if your house is on fire, you’d think they’d at least show a modicum of outrage. None of them do.

It’s best summed up by a post I read on Hot Air a while back.

The Left’s at war with the Right
and the Right thinks it’s having a political discussion.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 PM

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

thanks TxAnn. I am hoping to catch his first Senate Floor Speech.

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 PM

I think the Left assumes they’ve bought the US government; therefore, it’s their property and not ‘yours’, is how they respond.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

This can be applied to tax cuts also when the left is always going on about how tax cuts need to be paid for and how unpaid tax cuts are a cause of the huge deficits.

supernova on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

For those who fancy themselves as fancier-than-you/me, the Left/Democrats are routinely nonsensical.

This mantra relied upon by the Left is illogical:
“tax cuts have to be paid for.”

It just makes no rational, reasonable nor logical sense.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:04 PM

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Love it. I’ve been pleasantly surprised at some of the House members coming out against our wanna be “king”.

Of course our Speaker *crickets*

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Auto play on videos is one sure way to drive people away from HA. As soon as I find a thread with auto-play on the video, I leave it.

People following HA in office cubicles do the same, of course.

Stupid is as stupid does.

petefrt on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 PM

There are fixes for that, particularly if you’re using Firefox (Mozilla browser).

Install GHOSTLY and DONOTTRACK for Firefox and even if using IE as browser, there are some fixes available.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP with the auto play vids, okay?

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Love it. I’ve been pleasantly surprised at some of the House members coming out against our wanna be “king”.

Of course our Speaker *crickets*

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

I think Boehner’s statement from today/late yesterday was, to the contrary, kinda great: he simply said if there’s legislation to consider, the House will consider it, otherwise, ho-hum, Obama’s fantasies continue.

to that effect.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Love it. I’ve been pleasantly surprised at some of the House members coming out against our wanna be “king”.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Really? Like who?

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I think Boehner’s statement from today/late yesterday was, to the contrary, kinda great: he simply said if there’s legislation to consider, the House will consider it, otherwise, ho-hum, Obama’s fantasies continue.

to that effect.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Oh I didn’t see it. That is kinda good in a brush off way.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 PM

thanks TxAnn. I am hoping to catch his first Senate Floor Speech.

CoffeeLover on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Ditto. He’s one of the few candidates that I’ve met in person a couple of times, only because he always made himself available at every senatorial forum, tea party event, GOP HQ opening. The guy was tireless criss crossing the state to spread his message when the elites didn’t think he had a chance. So far, he hasn’t forgotten the grassroots who helped get him in office.

TxAnn56 on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Op-Ed by Charles Hurt:

HURT: Gun edicts put personal liberty under fire

A principled liberal would be horrified at the notion that the government is going to keep giant lists of people who are criminals or who are deemed crazy or dangerous. And even more breathtaking is that these lists will be used to determine the degree of freedom those individuals will be granted by the government. Do you remember the liberal outrage over the huge government list to keep people deemed dangerous from flying on airplanes? Ted Kennedy is turning over in his grave. Now, of course, no one rightly objects to finding reasonable ways to keep criminals and wackos from getting their hands on guns. But it is shocking how easily and freely liberals have gone along with the notion of more giant government lists of crazy and bad people. Then there is the debt-ceiling debate where we have a president who refuses to conduct an open debate over raising it. President Obama orders Congress to simply authorize the government to borrow for him a ton more money. And if they don’t comply with his wishes, then he will seek to take that power away from them. The power of the purse in the hands of Congress has always been the check that keeps the president in balance. (READ THE WHOLE THING)…

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Did anyone see this?

ATTN Gun Owners: McConnell & Reid Cutting Deal on the Filibuster

jffree1 on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Really? Like who?

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM

This twitter feed has a lot of responses

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Paul at least seems angry about it.
Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 PM

That’s the key. Republicans have been neutered by the media, made to think that “anger” is political suicide, at the least a sign of extremism. But anger is the key to our revival (and the Left knows it). That dolt Romney never figured it out. (Did the Left EVER anger him?) Paul’s got a natural, down-home anger, and it makes him unique, much more “real” than Rubio.

rrpjr on January 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

rrpjr on January 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Plus Paul’s anger is believable. It’s coming from his core values.

I just don’t think Rubio’s is all the time.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Really? Like who?

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM

This twitter feed has a lot of responses

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Fox News article has a few statements by GOP Congressional members:

Obama gun plan meets resistance from Republicans on Capitol Hill

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM

rrpjr on January 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Absolutely.

Angry, and unified in BEING angry is the key to turning this around. If it’s going to BE turned around.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Jousting at windbags.

fogw on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM

I just don’t think Rubio’s is all the time.

gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

You can’t manufacture or fake it. It’s either there or it’s not.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM

How in the world did Ron Paul’s loins produce Rand? I’m also somewhat flummoxed about the autoplay videos. Is Hotair saying we’re too stupid to press play?

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Nice to see Rand out there helping to set a new tone of reasoned defiance.

Still want a governor for 2016, but he is as good as any in helping to change the tone.

can_con on January 16, 2013 at 10:34 PM

What was that old Leftist bumper sticker saying when Bush was president?

“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM

it’s not remotely the most laughworthy recommendation offered by Obama

Liberals and narcissists (I know, redundant) are shameless.

John the Libertarian on January 16, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Millions are waiting for someone to finally have the stones to stand up to this fraud President. He’s a fake. He’s even a fake black.
I’m more black than that fool. I don’t care if
Hollywood and the MSM will holler to holy hell. We are begging to someone to step up to this clown.

Hummer53 on January 16, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Who cares about the details, at least he’s doing something.

MT on January 16, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Wow. Such a better response than Rubio. Anything less than outrage is weak.

Dongemaharu on January 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM

There is something about Rubio that is fishy to me. I can’t quite put my finger on it but something doesn’t add up for me.
gophergirl on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I have the same impression. In many ways Jeb Bush causes similar uneasiness… as though somehow they know better what’s best for us than we do.
viking01 on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Viking01. Agree. Bush has implied amnesty talk is hurtful. Rubio has a similar spiel. Ditto Perry. All are down on the public for not going with their program, and they all made it personal.

They set so you agree with them, or you are a bad person

Rand on the other hand, argues constitution, and law. This allows people to hold their own opinions, the public can pass the law it desires, and the courts will verify constitutionality. Dissent is allowed in a free society. Dissent is what the three musketeers of amnesty do not accept

Rand is making up for all the cowards and yes men collecting and protecting their big bucks salaries in DC. He is one of the few representing my interests these days

entagor on January 17, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Why risk alienating a patient and having him take his business elsewhere by trying to have “the talk” with him about guns?

That’s exactly what we did 15 years ago when my kid’s pediatrician asked about guns in our home. We told him it was none of his business, then we found another pediatrician.

GWB on January 17, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Sen. Paul is the only repub I’d vote for at this time, mainly because he has a solid Libertarian background. Rubio is okay, but mainly just a politician.

Panther on January 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM

Do it to em’ rand!

TX-96 on January 17, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Regarding exit question, doctors might not have “the talk about guns”, but they will be required to ask scripted questions and document the answers. The last time I went to the doctor, I was asked about 10 questions on mental health that I was told they were required to ask, such as did I ever consider suicide, have I ever taken medication for depression, have I ever been depressed, did I have an anger problem, etc. I answered no to all the questions, and at the time, I wondered if this information would ever be used against someone in a background check. Just be careful what information you do give your doctor.

lea on January 17, 2013 at 7:27 AM

Awwww, that’s really cute that you still believe a presidential election will happen in 2016.

LoganSix on January 17, 2013 at 7:30 AM

Sen. Paul is the only repub I’d vote for at this time, mainly because he has a solid Libertarian background. Rubio is okay, but mainly just a politician.

Panther on January 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM

I agree, and I doubt Rand Paul could be taken over by the Establishment, which is why he would never get the nomination. I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t see the leadership ever supporting him during the primaries.

lea on January 17, 2013 at 7:30 AM

Rubio has already been taken over by the Establishment. Once they floated his name as a possible VP pick, he was hooked. They just march him out there when they need a conservative or hispanic point of view. Same thing happened to Paul Ryan.

lea on January 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that a guy who just visited Israel and is now talking about blocking executive overreach on gun-grabbing just might be running for president in 2016. – AllahP.

The Fates will surely be on our side, for a change, if Rand Paul runs for POTUS. By 2016 he’ll know where all “the bodies are buried”, as it were.
I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2013 at 7:39 AM

I should have voted for Rand’s Dad.

Mr. Arrogant on January 17, 2013 at 7:43 AM

What?! How did an American sneak into the U.S. Congress?

ROCnPhilly on January 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Sen. Paul is the only repub I’d vote for at this time, mainly because he has a solid Libertarian background. Rubio is okay, but mainly just a politician.

Panther on January 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM

And better yet he’s the RIGHT KIND of Libertarian. If he were a whiny, unspanked pothead brat like Dumb-te, I would have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever.

He’s also learned from his father’s mistake – namely, that it is a bad idea to throw sand in the face of one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation if you want to get elected. Both they and their unpaid advocates are nothing to laugh at, and their power is very real.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 8:21 AM

If you’re using Firefox, the ‘NoScript’ add-on will block autoplay.

PersonFromPorlock on January 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Install GHOSTLY and DONOTTRACK for Firefox …

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

THANK YOU ! I use Firefox and will install now.

petefrt on January 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I like this Guy!!!!!

RandyKowalski on January 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

These guys?
….
Bmore on January 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM

What was that list of Congress people from? Which vote?

preallocated on January 17, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Okay, it’s time to vet Rand Paul.

*His stance on civil rights

*His refusal to return money to white supremacists

*His former spokesman Chris Hightower

*Alex Jones connection

Defense? Is Paul electable as a President?

Seriously, what’s the answer to the media when they bring all of this up?

DeathtotheSwiss on January 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM

He’s also learned from his father’s mistake – namely, that it is a bad idea to throw sand in the face of one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation if you want to get elected. Both they and their unpaid advocates are nothing to laugh at, and their power is very real.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 8:21 AM

I’m sorry but I don’t see Rand Paul as that much different than his daddy. Just more polished and smart enough not to push too hard on some issues. Ron Paul developed a cult following by his support of legalizing pot but his truly insane ideas about foreign policy were largely ignored because few people with a couple brain cells to rub together paid attention to Paul’s ideas on other issues.

I think the GOP will truly be Charlie Brown looking to kick a football so long as just throw support behind images and not do a real vetting of the candidates. I’m not willing to support any candidate without a fuller airing of their views. Rubio is beginning to lose me over his pandering on amnesty. Paul has yet to prove that he isn’t a repackaged version of Ron Paul’s isolationalism and slashing of the military’s ability to engage when it is in the national interest.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I’m from KY and was down right in love with Rand up until I noticed he had received his elite membership card in the mail. The unanimous vote in the Senate on the Sandy Pork bill was a really head scratcher. I really don’t understand how he could go along with all of that pork.

I’ve met the majority of congressmen from KY and will tell you with absolute certainty that Hal Rogers, McConnell, et al., are purely in this for the ability to dole out money to districts, municipalities, private corporations, etc. I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes at these luncheons that they host for themselves. All of the little mayors and crack licking hob-nob ruling class elitists get together and all are wondering where’s the funding for this or that… I’ve heard with my own ears Chandler and Rogers say things to the effect “I’m sorry boys but all of these tea-party types don’t want to spend a dime” like it’s a bad thing.

I learned that a politician that actually supports the tax payers interests is a rare bird indeed. It is an absolute fact that 99% of our Congress has one express purpose: the continuation and expansion of their OWN power, everything else be damned. The fiscal cliff? The debt ceiling? SS, Medicare unfunded liabilities? None of that matters to them. All of the posturing, preening, grandstanding, etc., means nothing.. they are there for themselves, no one else.

preallocated on January 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Rand Paul looks like the best the GOP has to offer.

David Blue on January 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Install GHOSTLY and DONOTTRACK for Firefox …

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

THANK YOU ! I use Firefox and will install now.

petefrt on January 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Also install NOSCRIPT as someone earlier commented here.

Installing these addons and/or plugins in Firefox DOES block almost everything except “the printed word” on sites, so it can be limiting if you need to see a lot of graphics (in which case, you can disable the plugins/addons individually to reach whatever access you want, then re-enable them later).

Lourdes on January 17, 2013 at 9:59 AM

What was that list of Congress people from? Which vote?

preallocated on January 17, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Here.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Rand Paul looks like the best the GOP has to offer.

David Blue on January 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Well then, God help us all.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I like that he’s doing this but it’s still accepting the premise that Obama’s imperial decrees are legitimate. They aren’t any more legitimate than obama’s birth was.

The Constitution grants the president no such power to order anything not enumerated within nor enacted into law by Congress. Obama has no more power to issue executive orders with force and legitimacy of law than any of us do.

wildcat72 on January 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I don’t see Rand Paul as that much different than his daddy. Just more polished and smart enough not to push too hard on some issues. Ron Paul developed a cult following by his support of legalizing pot but his truly insane ideas about foreign policy were largely ignored because few people with a couple brain cells to rub together paid attention to Paul’s ideas on other issues.

I think the GOP will truly be Charlie Brown looking to kick a football so long as just throw support behind images and not do a real vetting of the candidates. I’m not willing to support any candidate without a fuller airing of their views. Rubio is beginning to lose me over his pandering on amnesty. Paul has yet to prove that he isn’t a repackaged version of Ron Paul’s isolationalism and slashing of the military’s ability to engage when it is in the national interest.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Great comments, Happy Nomad.

Maybe we can mostly all add, “let’s like Rand Paul and support him when he stands up for the Constitution and opposes attacks on it, and let’s continue to learn more about his views and goals in other areas, about other issues.”

Adding that Ron Paul has many a Leftwing, Democrat, Socialist supporter and Soros-funding intertwined with the groups and goals of some of them, to a troubling extent.

The legalize-drugs movement can always be traced back to Soros, same as the “no borders” movement can be. His money infects many groups, many people, with a sickness I can’t even begin to identify other than to call it sickness…

Having heard Rand Paul speak kindly about his dad in the recent past while also making his views clear that they are his and not his father’s (that he maintains views of his own, respects his father’s views but his father’s views aren’t his, to that effect), I’m willing to extend confidence enough at this point in Rand Paul that he’s not RonPaul2.0.

But we do need to know more about Rand Paul as to his views, voting record, just more about him before starting to promote him as Presidential GOP candidate. So far, so good, though.

Lourdes on January 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I know they do get intrusive on occasion, and it’s a legit topic in the case of a patient who seems genuinely mental, but doctors must realize what a hot button this subject is for many people. Why risk alienating a patient and having him take his business elsewhere by trying to have “the talk” with him about guns?

The Docs I see always have to take five minutes of my appointment to express how angry they are with ObamaCare and how it’s going to negatively impact my treatment in the future.

They’re not fans of Obama – and they won’t obey the “King” in this instance.

HondaV65 on January 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Paul has yet to prove that he isn’t a repackaged version of Ron Paul’s isolationalism and slashing of the military’s ability to engage when it is in the national interest.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Nomad, no offense meant, but get this through your head: the coming fiscal cliff is going to do more to induce “isolationalism” – AKA not playing Little Jack Horner in every Turd-World nation and not babysitting half the globe – than all of Libertarianism combined has ever been able to.

Or in other words, reality is going to ensue and it won’t be the fault of anyone who’s last name is Paul. Just sayin’.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Unnecessary. The states have the power of nullification. Legislation at the federal level is worthless. The Constitution already limits the Executive in regards to executive orders (which are largely unconstitutional) and the 2nd Amendment already prohibits the federal government from restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Law has never stopped the government.

The states MUST refuse to abide by unconstitutuional laws and EOs.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Unnecessary. The states have the power of nullification.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The last time nullification was tried, your ancestors used it against freedom and got more Americans killed than in all wars previous.

Tread very carefully – for your sake, for your family’s sake, for your STATE’S sake. This is dangerous ground.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM

uto play on videos is one sure way to drive people away from HA. As soon as I find a thread with auto-play on the video, I leave it.

People following HA in office cubicles do the same, of course.

Stupid is as stupid does.

petefrt on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Use th mute button.

katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2013 at 10:21 AM

They’re not fans of Obama – and they won’t obey the “King” in this instance.

HondaV65 on January 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM

He’s the king you voted for. Pound sand, jackwad.

katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM

They’re not fans of Obama – and they won’t obey the “King” in this instance.

HondaV65 on January 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Including you, I suppose? Ha. You’ll bow so low you’ll make a Honda-shaped impression in the ground the minute he so much as looks at you sternly.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP with the auto play vids, okay?

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Ditto²
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM

The last time nullification was tried, your ancestors used it against freedom and got more Americans killed than in all wars previous.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM

That’s actually not true, but you’ve always shown your ignorance of history. The War Between the States was not fought due to nullification. In fact, it was the Northern states who pursued nullification, not the Southern states. Nullfication is not synonymous with s.e.cession. In fact, nullification was successfully used againt the Fugitive Slave Act, which was used in defense of freedom.

nullification and the fugitive slave act

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The states MUST refuse to abide by unconstitutuional laws and EOs.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM

President ØbeyMe has bitten off a helluva lot more than he can chew, as it were.
(and so have all of his (p)sychophants and “fellow travelers”)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Oh look, the racist history revisionist has another propaganda link. How cute.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP with the auto play vids, okay?

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Yea..it started yesterday on some other threads.
Is it a revenue/hits thing?

verbaluce on January 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM

auto play.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Steven McGregor on January 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM

“Nullification” has been used in many State Courts whenever a defendant has been entrapped, er, “set up” by lazy and stupid LEOs. Jurors (generally) aren’t that stupid.
(the exception that proves the rule: the O.J. Simpson “trial”)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Showboating…but maybe he’ll stick some of his well known pork in it?

Don L on January 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Oh look, the racist history revisionist has another propaganda link. How cute.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM

That’s the expected reply from the statist who favors a centralized, authoritarian government and doesn’t acknowledge or believe in states rights.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Several Governors have already sent letters to their state legislatures requesting that they pass a bill making enforcement of Obama’s unconstitutional EOs illegal in their state.

kingsjester on January 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM

That’s actually not true, but you’ve always shown your ignorance of history. The War Between the States was not fought due to nullification. In fact, it was the Northern states who pursued nullification, not the Southern states. Nullfication is not synonymous with s.e.cession. In fact, nullification was successfully used againt the Fugitive Slave Act, which was used in defense of freedom.

nullification and the fugitive slave act

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

You are correct that the north attempted to use nullification during the civil war era, but that’s about it.

Firstly, it wasn’t successful. They lost all the Supreme Court cases associated with their use of it. Secondly, the Southern states(particularly South Carolina) first attempted to use it to say that they essentially didn’t have to follow any federal law.

You are right in that it wasn’t the last time nullification was significantly used in the US. The last time it was significantly used was when the south attempted to fight de-segregation.

segasagez on January 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM

That’s the expected reply from the statist who favors a centralized, authoritarian government and doesn’t acknowledge or believe in states rights.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM

As of today, a State does not have a constitutional right to ignore a federal law. Maybe that will change, but that’s the way it is right now.

segasagez on January 17, 2013 at 10:48 AM

PROGRESSIVE LONG VIEW……..

Disarm and then people will clamor for… MORE SECURITY, MORE POLICE, more Federal power and authority to “maintain control”.

So the GOD/KING is in line with the long view of history of Progressives.

AKA Break it…….then you get to “fix” it.

PappyD61 on January 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM

As of today, a State does not have a constitutional right to ignore a federal law. Maybe that will change, but that’s the way it is right now.

segasagez on January 17, 2013 at 10:48 AM

And all your D-grade racist whining won’t change that fact, Dumb-te.

So what’re you gonna do about it?

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Hmmm…though I’ ve never had a Democrat say that to me, specifically, it’s my conclusion after knowing many a Democrat as to their assumption, presumption, as to their belief they own govt and the rest of us are some intolerable scum-class that they’re barely able to tolerate if at all.

Known many, many a Democrat who believes that, inhabits that.

Lourdes on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM

My belief is that liberals are those “control-freak from birth” kids who goad the kindergarten teacher to make Susie sit over there, and to remove the problem the teacher complies.
They soon grow up to control our politicians -who will eat any forbidden fruit that makes them like God.

Don L on January 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM

One way to stop the auto play feature here at HA is to install this. Be forewarned it will stop all ads from running. It will also increase your refresh speed huge! I have been using it for 7 or 8 months now and love it. 0 problems with it. If you don’t install this, stop complaining.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM

By default if you do install it. You will thank me and stop complaining both.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 10:54 AM

As of today, a State does not have a constitutional right to ignore a federal law. Maybe that will change, but that’s the way it is right now.

segasagez on January 17, 2013 at 10:48 AM

First of all, the Constitution restricts the federal government; the federal government is the creation of the states. It is subservient to the states. Secondly, the states do have the right of nullification. Nullification is not ignoring any and every federal law; it is refusing to follow and abide by unconstitutional law. Let’s take a look at the Supremacy Clause, and note the highlighted part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here is some reading material for you. I strongly urge you to read it, especially if you believe in states’ rights, federalism, limited government, etc.

Nullification

Answering the Objections

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM

“Nullification violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”

This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.

Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”

For further evidence, see Brion McClanahan.

Dante on January 17, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3