Rand Paul’s Faux-Libertarian Opposition to the Patriot Act

The National Review ^ | June 6, 2015 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[2ndDivisionVet]

At Powerline this week, Steve Hayward penned a post aptly entitled “The Insincerity of Rand Paul.” The senator’s legal arguments against the Patriot Act, he posits, mimic papa Ron Paul’s 2003 calls for a formal declaration of war against Iraq: mere “constitutional punctilio to cover his real feelings.”

Steve is right. Congress statutorily authorized the use of military force in Iraq. Nothing more was constitutionally required. The real reason for Representative Ron Paul’s formalistic nattering about a declaration of war was his opposition to American intervention in Iraq. That, in turn, was driven by his theory that it was American national defense policies that cause anti-U.S. animus. Senator Rand Paul’s overwrought constitutional claims against the Patriot Act similarly camouflage his real objection: He is anti-government even with respect to national security, one of the few things for which we actually need the federal government. I use the term “anti-government” advisedly. Paul is generously portrayed as a libertarian. In an age of unprecedented government intrusion into (formerly) private life, Paul has made inroads with conservatives because we believe in limited government. Yet, while conservatives are wary in any context of government’s corruptive propensities, we are not anti-government.

EDITORIAL: Republicans Shouldn’t Have Surrendered on the Patriot Act We want government that is big enough to do the things for which we need it, we want it to do those things well, and we are not ashamed to admire it when it does so. Government is a necessary evil — with an emphasis on necessary. Ronald Reagan is fondly remembered for how he used government’s appropriate national security powers to wither the Soviet Union. We wish he had had more success in stripping government down to its proper role, but what we most admire is Reagan’s orchestration of government’s proper role...

[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[seacapn]

The author seems to make a basic error in assuming that “national security” is enhanced by the intrusions and provisions of the Patriot Act.

What is his evidence of that claim?

It also doesn’t make one “against” national security to prefer methods of bolstering national security other than the Patriot Act. I mean, look at the number of terrorists who came into the US legally via the immigration system. It would seem that reform in that area would be more valuable than Patriot Act spying.

[RIghtwardHo]

The author is clueless. Well, I have no argument that Rand is disingenuous and his arguments are made just to be “different”. But there is NO question that the Patriot Act needs to be scraped in it’s entirety. THIS is the Act that Conservatives need to worry about the most. It is fascism pure and simple.

[nickcarraway]

I am not the biggest fan of Paul, but his opposition to the Patriot Act is sincere and on point.

If the Patriot Act allows the U.S. government to obtain the communications of U.S. citizens, some future court will DEFINITELY use this as a precedence to invalidate the Fourth Amendment. No question.

[4rcane]

We can’t trust the government to get anything right, but somehow we trust them on security. Why? I know its their only duty, but why do we trust them on security

[nathanbedford]

I can think of no commentator whom I respect more than Andrew McCarthy for his forthrightness and his conservative credibility. I am glad he wrote this column which serves to bring perspective to Rand Paul's arguments.

However, there appears to be other factors which Andrew did not deal with. We have a rogue president in office who is utterly untroubled by violations of the Constitution, of law, or of his constituents' privacy. We have evidence, rather proof, of violations of our privacy by one of the most dangerous of all our bureaucratic organizations, the IRS. It is not a stretch to say I believe there is evidence connecting Barack Obama personally to the outrages committed by the IRS which, not incidentally, also include violations of privacy.

I think Andy McCarthy should consider the situation in the light of that history and tell us why we should not be afraid or advise us as to what kind of safeguards, beyond apparently ineffectual presentation to judges, that should be put in place to preserve our privacy.

More than just privacy is at stake, these intrusions are the potential preliminaries to real tyranny.

Nor is it just our financial records going to the IRS, our vulnerability to sneak and peek, but Obamacare places our most intimate private matters directly into the hands of the government. The tendency of the left to legislate their version of "morality" in matters of health is clear and they love to use statistics to justify their intrusions. It is only a small step for them to apply that logic to individuals and justify their tyranny with the individual's own health records of smoking, drinking, obesity-everything evidently except sodomy.

In the digital age we are more and more vulnerable to a government which is less and less transparent and less and less accountable.

What say you to this, Andrew McCarthy?

[Forgotten Amendments]

They’re getting nervous. Anti-semite card to be hurled in 5 ... 4 ... 3...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The author is clueless. Well, I have no argument that Rand is disingenuous and his arguments are made just to be “different”. But there is NO question that the Patriot Act needs to be scraped in it’s entirety. THIS is the Act that Conservatives need to worry about the most. It is fascism pure and simple.

What this act actually does is extend legal methods and techniques formerly reserved for organized crime. The only complaint you can really make is against the bulk metadata of phone records, but even that was inaccessible without a warrant, and its purpose is to allow the government speedy access to telephone records, since terrorists change their phones frequently, which could be especially useful if we are in the midst of a mass attack.

It is very unlikely that the wireless phone companies are going to cooperate, and I believe one of them has even declared they will not even be keeping that metadata on their own systems now, so we can't even get a warrant and ask them to provide it.

The only thing Ron Paul accomplished in demonizing that is put American lives in danger.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Rand Paul as President can never be. He is dangerous and stupid. At least the Democrats don’t want an attack under their watch because they’ll lose an election. Rand Paul will reduce us to combating terrorism to the level of how a cop catches a speeder.

[Theoria]

'Steve is right. Congress statutorily authorized the use of military force in Iraq. Nothing more was constitutionally required.'

Statutorily authorized is Obamaspeak.

[browniexyz]

I think National Review throws us off the point. Sen. Paul’s rant while allowing the Patriot Act to expire did nothing in fact. Unless Congress is willing to DEFUND the NSA’s listening programs, NSA goes on and on and on, without legislative authorization anyway. Who will stop the NSA from collecting information? The COURTS? What a joke. The Court won’t even stop HHS and the Medicaid program from extending Medicaid even where it is not authorized by statute in Obamacare. So, I don’t care what Sen. Paul says, if Congress doesn’t use the POWER OF THE PURSE to defund programs it doesn’t think the NSA should use, then it is all hot air.

[PreciousLiberty]

Ever since 9/11 I’ve said that blanket security such as the over the top airport security never should have happened in favor of a focus on foreign nationals and terrorism.

Lately a test showed that 95% of contraband penetrates the airport security which has cost untold billions, time and humiliation.

I fully support Rand Paul on this. Blanket domestic surveillance is unconstitutional and prone to abuse.