Rand Paul Says Obama's ISIS Plan Definitely Unconstitutional

He still supports it, though.


Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Republican Sen. Rand Paul expressed support for President Obama's latest round of military action against terrorist state ISIS while insisting that the operation is nevertheless technically unconstitutional.

The president should have obtained Congressional authorization, Paul told Sean Hannity on Fox News after Obama's televised announcement.

While Paul supported doing "whatever it takes to take out ISIS," he also asked Hannity to consider whether the history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East has produced anything worth celebrating. The U.S. led or supported the overthrow of secular Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, and Hosni Mubarak. It could be argued that each revolution empowered radical Islam, according to Paul.

"Libya is a jihadist wonderland," said Paul.

Hannity, on the other hand, maintained that the U.S. very nearly achieved a stable democracy in Iraq until Obama pulled out American forces too early and ruined everything. Kudos to Paul for at least pushing back against that notion.

NEXT: Obama Announces New Bombing Campaign in Syria

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Quick work, Robby.

    So Paul is (among others) on record as saying this would be unconstitutional.

    So what will they do when Obama goes ahead with it without them?

    1. What will Paul do when Obama goes ahead without Congress?

      He'll run for president, that's what he'll do. And he'll criticize the president for defying the Constitution, and he'll support the troops--whatever the hell that means...

      And he'll be seen as a dove compared to Hillary Clinton. Compared to Hillary Clinton, he'll be seen as the peace candidate--that's what he'll do. But in the meantime, he'll do what he needs to do and say what he needs to say in order to contend for the nomination.

      1. Yup...because if he didn't his critics in the GOP would turn the knives on him even faster than Clinton would.

        Just one of those turd sandwiches you have to eat if you want to run for higher office.

        1. Damn straight!

          And I'll cheer him on the whole way.

          Do what you gotta do, Rand.

      2. "Compared to Hillary Clinton, he'll be seen as the peace candidate--that's what he'll do"

        In all seriousness I don't think that will pan out. People will see though it. Voters would rather have someone who told them "look, I have experience, the world is a dangerous place" than someone who stands on ideology.

        I know, I know....Hope and Change, etc....right?

        But, again realistically, intelligent Obama voters never expected the military-industrial complex to go away. Rather we just expected to tone it down.

        As to ISIS, it's all a tough call. We created the makes you wish this was like Vietnam where a communist leader was ready to take over when we left!

        At least that created some order.

        1. I'll just leave this here.

        2. Your definition of "order" is a bit different from mine. But then my definition doesn't include "reeducation camps" and killing hundreds of thousands of people who don't agree with me:

          "In the aftermath of the war, under Le Duan's administration, the government embarked on a mass campaign of collectivization of farms and factories.[73] This caused economic chaos and resulted in triple-digit inflation, while national reconstruction efforts progressed slowly. At least one million South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps, with an estimated 165,000 prisoners dying.[74][75] Between 100,000[74][76][77] and 200,000[78] South Vietnamese were executed in extrajudicial killings;[79] another 50,000 died performing hard labor in "New Economic Zones".[74][80] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, millions of people fled the country in crudely built boats, creating an international humanitarian crisis;[81][82] hundreds of thousands died at sea.[83]"

        3. *intelligent Obama voters *

          Hahahahaha. Everyone knows there's no such thing.

  2. I'm having a fun conversation on Fark (I haven't been there in years) about how bombing Syria is illegal. Some liberal is defending Obama by saying Bush's AUMF against Terrists is all the justification Obama needs to bomb anybody anywhere.

    This war will TOTALLY be different than all the others because Obama knows what he's doing!

    1. Unfortunately, that liberal is not that wrong. It doesn't make it right, but it's technically constitutional as per jurisprudence. Such is the sad state of affairs we live in, where too many years of a complacent Congress and never-ending authorizations enable Presidents to do as they please. (loosely citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

      1. It is soooooooooooo time to repeal the AUMF.

        That thing should have had a sunset clause--at the very least.

        No more blank checks, America!

        We may never get rid of that damn thing now.

        They use the AUMF to justify all sorts of terrible things--including the NSA.

    2. How long before being anti-war is racist?

      1. It became racist at approximately 9pm EST this evening.

        1. I don't wanna be a racist until 10:00. Have to read my daughter a bedtime story and don't think The Turner Diaries is appropriate. Extension?

  3. the U.S. very nearly achieved a stable democracy

    One night while fiddling around in my basement which ended up burning down my house and the neighbors....I nearly perfected cold fusion.

    1. The trick is to not apply the phlebotinum until the Dark Matter reaches vorpalization.

      1. No no no. You use RED MATTER!

        1. What are you talking about? That stuff's $4 an ounce!

          1. At whole foods maybe. Do you think I'm made of money?

  4. So I just read the text of Obama's speech. I have to give him credit for not bringing religion into this. He didn't do the Bush song and dance, for the benefit of Arabian royalty, about the good muslims and bad muslims, or some axis of evil between North Korea and ISIS.

    In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality.

    This brutality is commonplace, just not recently.

    1. I have to give him credit for not bringing religion into this.

      "May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America."

      1. That's not religion. That's tradition.

        1. cavalier973|9.10.14 @ 11:30PM|#
          "That's not religion. That's tradition"

          Did he strike the court jester with the flat of his sword?

      2. He doesn't really believe all that.

        1. Hey, there are no atheists in a glory hole.

          1. It is there one believes in a god for about 10 seconds.

    2. I think declaring ISIS not to be Islamic to be "not Islamic" covered that particular base. I understand why he said it, I suppose, but it's still a fucking retarded thing to say.

      If ISIS isn't Islamic what the hell does "moderate" rebel even mean? Moderate what?

      1. "moderate" rebel = "moderate" terrist

  5. As much I fuckin hate Sean fuckin Hannity, it sounds like they were having an honest intellectual conversation (and disagreement) about the issue. So there's that.

    Not that I'm going to watch it and confirm or deny my allegation.

    1. Hannity doesn't have the mind power to have any sort of a intellectual conversation. He's the guy who pushed others in the urinal in middle school.

      1. *He's the guy who pushed others in the urinal in middle school.*

        I thought that was Mitt Romney, you commie.

        1. Most cons are bullies - either you agree with them or they turn violent. You can see it here. No one says "well, I respect your opinion but have a different view". Rather they say "you turd, you cunt".

          I don't know any different. Your parents didn't teach you that simple lesson.

    1. The libertarian is much worse than the other two. He sounds like some dude on campus with one of those body placard things yelling at passers-by.

      1. How's that fastball, Sidd?

  6. Who are you going to believe: an ophthalmologist, or a Constitutional Scholar?

    /Captain Obvious

    1. Assad?


    2. The one that doesn't wipe his ass with the constitution.

  7. up to I looked at the check which was of $7513 , I have faith that my neighbour woz like they say really taking home money part-time on-line. . there sisters roommate has been doing this for less than 11 months and by now cleared the dept on there place and bourt a brand new Lancia . look at this now

  8. Its been clear for quite awhile that Paul would do pretty much what Obama has been doing. I agree with him that we never get the end result we are looking for in the Mideast, but its clear that trajectory isn't going to change anytime soon, even if Paul gains the Oval Office.

    Just waiting for Nick Gillespie to criticize Paul's stance, just like he did yesterday about the President. Waiting...waiting...

    1. He let Doherty do his dirty work yesterday, or does that not count?

      1. Yeah, truth be told, Reason has parsed some criticism, albeit mild, toward Paul in recent days. Just want to see if Nick is only selective about critique of American policy toward the Mideast. Guess that won't happen when he gets his advice from the likes of Eli Lake.

  9. Because, after all, who could be better qualified than Hannity or Rand (an eye doc?) to know what is and what isn't constitutional?

    1. Could it be that the Constitution is short, unambiguous, and written in plain English for the purpose of allowing everyone to understand it?

      1. is that also too two or is it straight and true?

        Would wood be bee filled or fraught wit drones?

  10. Context & Consequences

    Behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context. B = f(x) under c.

    Context: Obama violating the U.S. Constitution to achieve goals in keeping with his pastor's admonition, "God d*mn America!"

    Behavior: Obama violates the U.S. Constitution re: ISIL with no specific goal stated.

    Consequence: Senator Rand Paul supports this particular violation of the U.S. Constitution because he agrees with it; thereby, strengthening all the other of Obama's violation to come (

    1. Rand (generally) agrees with the proposed action, but he disagrees with the way in which is proposed to be carried out, because of the Constitutional violation.

      This is easy to understand, and incredibly obvious.

  11. *he also asked Hannity to consider whether the history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East has produced anything worth celebrating.*

    Someday, someone's gonna notice the whole area is one giant turd. And then, maybe, someone's might get an inkling to stop trying to polish said turd. Somewhat later on, someone might try flushing the turd.


  12. Glad to see Rand backing away from libertarian standings. He had me rethinking my vow to never vow R or D again.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.