TED Conversations

Robert Winner

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

Rand Pauls Filibuster in the US Senate

A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal.

On the 6th of March Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours delaying the vote for the Presidents nominee for head of the CIA. The issue on the table for Rand Paul was the "Limits of Executive Power" specifically the use of drones on US citizens. In a response to the use of drones in the US on US citizens Attorney General Eric Holders first response stated "the under certain conditions the President could legally call for the use of drones on US citizens". In response to Rand Pauls filibuster AG Holders response has been modified to "no".

The debate is centered around Rand Pauls defense of the Constitution and the limits imposed on the sitting President of the United States and the defined limits of Executive Power ..... or ..... was he right to bring this to light of the American people .... or ... was there a better way to call attention to this issue .... or .... since there was no public outcry is this even a issue.?

Share:
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Mar 11 2013: Rand Paul wants to protect and defend those parts of the constitution that he wants to protect and defend. Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.

    Is it a non-issue? Yes, and Rand Paul was just attempting to excite another distraction.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: In principle I support Rand Paul's initiative. However the fact that he chose to do it during the appointment of Brennan completely distorts the message. Now it comes across as yet another republican attempt to obstruct his nomination because of his criticism of the Bush administration. And because he is appointed by Obama.

    All in all I think the context renders the act pointless.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: Perhaps. However, Brennen was a big supporter of using the drone and supported the administrations stand on use against American citizens in combat areas ... he also supported the first reply of Eric Holder who said to not rule out the use of drones against Americans on US soil. Which was not denied by the president.

      The real issue at hand was the assumed power of the executive branch and he required a answer of the administration that they were not exceeding that authority. Holders terse one liner fulfilled that request.

      The administration has not been transparent in any of these dealings and of all people the Huffington Post has called the lack of transparency to the notice of the public stating that he is less transparent than even Bush. A giant statemnet from the principal backer of Obama.

      By doing this at the hearings on Brennen hit three birds with one stone .... Obama, Holder, and Brennen ... all in all good timing.

      By the way Rand is the face of Libertarians ... he is not a republician.

      Everyone is seeing this differently but in a national survey he was seen as protecting the Constitution from Executive Power abuse of authority.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: By what unreasonable expectation of abuse does the use of drones or any form of lethal force by a federal agency against "criminals" on US soil, where the intent of those criminals to do harm to the citizenry has been verified, require the President or his nominee to declare allegiance to it's prohibition?…I'll take "Smoke and Mirror Politics" for $800 please Alex...

    Rand Paul's abuse of the filibuster was nothing more than early campaigning to a constituency that already fears it's own government only when lead by their political opposition. I can only hope he had the courtesy to empty his own piss-bottle.
  • Mar 11 2013: Rand Paul is a Senator, and it was his call.

    Just for the record, he was supported by a few other Senators, some democratic.

    Even if Rand Paul was completely alone on this issue, he has every right to do what he did. I thought it was refreshing to hear one of our representatives defending a principle, even if his motivation was getting some free media time.

    It is very significant that he was successful in getting Holders to answer "no."

    That was the wrong answer. Essentially the President is the First Cop on duty, and he just said that he would not use a weapon that was available to him. Further, he conceded that the Senate has a voice in his choice of weapons.
  • Mar 11 2013: Good.
    I guess you are all okay with drones spying on you, 24/7?
    • Mar 11 2013: I have addressed this before, and I am happy to address it again.

      We will have no voice and no choice in this matter. We will be spyed upon, 24/7; I cannot imagine anything that will stop our government, or perhaps a private corporation, from gathering the information available from cameras, and possibly microphones, located in flying and driving drones and, eventually, everywhere on earth. Cameras are in and around almost every place of business, and in every cell phone.

      The issue should be, will all of this information be secret or public. By fighting the whole idea, we will assure that the information will be kept secret and will not be available to the courts. If we insist that the information is made public, we will know what the government knows and almost all violent criminals will be caught and put in jail.

      Fighting for the dregs of our illusion of privacy is a mistake.
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: Haven't we had enough delays and/or behaviors that prevent dealing with issues appropriately? Of course he has a right to bring issues to the attention of the people. So far, the impact I'm hearing most, is expressions of amazement that the man could stand there and speak for 13 hours without eating or going to the bathroom. Does that effectively address the issue? I agree with TED Lover.....it was another distraction.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: I agree with you that our Representatives need to get to work. I had some concern with the two replies that Eric Holder made ... but those are all politico talk and mean little.

      I am not so sure that this was a distraction .... It does set the stage that the Exexutive branch needs to be reeled in ... a Liberterian platform. In that way of thinking .. was this the first volly in a run for President for Rand?

      Sadly I do not see Rand as another Paul. I think this was ill advised.

      Always good to hear from you my friend. I wish you well. Bob.
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: Sadly not an issue.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: Pat, I tend to agree. What was his purpose. Is he starting a run .... I think this was ill advised. I honestly do not see him as a Ron Paul.

      Is he the liberterian face now?
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: I was referring to "since there was no public outcry is this even a issue.?"

        I don't know much about Rand Paul, hopefully the apple did not fall far from the tree.