Washington Post Columnist: The Constitution Doesn't Say What It Says, and Besides It's for Crackpots


Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post says a bunch of crazy shit regarding Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)'s failed measure to get the Senate on record as saying the Constitution doesn't let Obama do what he's doing in Libya:

The motion was a petulant one, quoting the president's words from 2007: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." First of all, that's not in the Constitution and is not a viable interpretation of the president's powers. Second, Congress doesn't get to circumscribe the powers of the president. And third, we're in a war (several, actually), and now is not the time to undercut an already less-than-ideal commander in chief.

It's a mystery why those eight Republicans would vote to continue discussion over this. (Some of the no votes may have simply wanted to have a debate.) But the co-sponsors are a different matter. What is their excuse? If Lee, for example, wants to be an effective conservative and not regarded as a crackpot, why is he casting such a vote?….Moreover, it does cast doubt on the moniker "Constitutional conservative" when those sporting the label don't understand what the Constitution means.

Article One, Sect. 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution of these here United States, Ms. Rubin. Ms. Rubin, Article One, Sect. 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution of these here United States. I believe I'm introducing you for the first time? Please note not the slightest attempt to quote the Constitution or make any argument based on it in her article.

Tom Woods takes on at length the more sophisticated, less blatantly ridiculous arguments for unconstrained presidential warmaking powers. Yesterday I celebrated Rand Paul's failed attempt to assert some senatorial sense on the same issue.