Skip to comments.Rand Paul Backs Off From Syria Filibuster Threat
Posted on 09/08/2013 12:55:47 PM PDT by JSDude1
Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday he would not filibuster the president's request to launch strikes against Syria but that he would insist Barack Obama abide by Congress's demands if it votes to prohibit military intervention in the civil war.
The Kentucky Republican told "Fox News Sunday" a filibuster would only delay a vote authorizing use of force.
"I will insist there is full debate on this and I will insist that I get an amendment and my amendment will say that the vote is binding -- that the president cannot, if we vote him down, decide to go to war anyway," Paul said.
"That's the way I interpret the Constitution, and I will insist on at least one vote where we say, 'Hey guys, this is not political show, this is not constitutional theater, this is a binding vote,'" Paul said.
Asked if he would support impeaching Obama if he disregarded the will of Congress, Paul cited several examples in which he believed the president had already done so
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rand-paul-syria-filibuster/2013/09/08/id/524416#ixzz2eKhLO2Da Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Rand Paul= all BLOW No SHOW! Typical “Libertarian” WUSS!
Fix is in
Was he bluster when he spoke against John Brennan?
IMO, Mr. Paul is more Reagan conservative (with libertarian leanings than his dad)!
Something that is truly admirable is a man that won’t stand on principle.
He is GOP, that is all.
“Rand Paul= all BLOW No SHOW! Typical Libertarian WUSS!”
That is one way of looking at it. But clearly BHO is trying to find a way of blaming congress whether he goes ahead with military options or not.
By having a vote, whatever the outcome, I think RP is trying to put the problem back on BHO. BHO shot off his mouth and according to some accounts orchestrated this mess, he needs to own it.
YES he was, he should have prepared himself better for a REAL Filibuster(Catheter, Water Bottles) etc.
I don’t think they have the votes in the Senate for final passage. Several Democrats could lose their jobs over this.
I see no Dr Ron Paul on the horizon; the cavalry ain’t coming; this is an inside jog, or not at all !!!!!!
Semper watching !!!!!!
And what was your price, Senator?
I hadn’t heard him say he would filibuster. I’ve heard lots of questions about whether he would followed by the inevitable claim that he had backed down.
Plenty of stupid people on the right buy into this crap.
Dr Ron Paul, OH WHAT A JOKE HE IS!
We always destroy our own.
When he did use the filibuster the same bunch dogpiled on him calling it “stupid,” “useless,” “a dog and pony show” etc. It doesn’t matter that he has been out front fighting against an action in Syria tooth and nail they’ll slam him anyway.
There would have been no point in a filibuster. Filibusters are to delay votes.
OK, real question: is Rand Paul being dumb like a fox & allowing Syria intervention to come to a vote in the full Senate so that the Dems will own (and be owned)
.yue eeeeeee899999999999by my cat just walked over the keyboard by the outcome?
In other words, if the Dems are driving off a cliff then by all means get out of their way?
Wait - if Dingy Harry Reid doesn’t want to allow a potentially embarrassing-to-Obama vote to come up, he’ll block it seven ways to Sunday. There’s that to consider.
A filibuster prevents a vote.
Currently in Congress, if making war against Syria was voted on, it most likely wouldn’t pass.
If it does not pass, and there is a binding agreement that Obama cannot act unilaterally, then the American people win.
If the vote is delayed, then Obama has more time to bribe or blackmail congressmen into submission.
Do you think a delay in the vote will really help stop this administration from acting extra-constitutionally?
A binding agreement would definitely impact the executive branch.