Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 69. (Read 205816 times)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today released a draft Declaration of War resolution against Islamic State (also known as ISIS) that he intends on introducing when Congress comes back into session in December.

As the New York Times reported today, Sen. Paul plans to introduce a resolution to declare war against the Islamic State, terminate the authority under the 2002 Iraq AUMF, and set a date for expiration of the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF.

“When Congress comes back into session in December, I will introduce a resolution to declare war against ISIS. I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act.Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,“ Sen. Paul said.


__________________________________________________



TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ‘‘The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war’’;

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’;

Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.’’;

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ‘‘In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.’’;

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State’’.


SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.—The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization—

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except—

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).


SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.
The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.


SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.


SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.


SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.
The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

...

... I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. ...

...

Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get ... all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office)...

As Hillary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.

Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior.

...

I am not considering Rand because I think he will “save America” or because his father is Ron Paul. I am considering Rand because I agree with him on enough positions that are important to me. Don’t take it from me though. Read the following article from H. A. Goodman, titled: I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why. Here are some excerpts:

...

What is so interesting to me about the above list, is that although I would strongly disagree with Mr. Goodman on many issues, I concur with his assessment of the importance of the above. NSA spying, aggressive and unconstitutional foreign policy, reforming the criminal justice system and drone strikes. These aren’t side issues to me. They are core issues. He didn’t even mention Audit the Fed, which Rand sponsored in the Senate and would almost surely continue to push for.

...


The reason is the establishment GOP is part of the status quo, and the status quo likes things as they are. Hillary Clinton would be merely a more militant version of Barack Obama with even deeper Wall Street ties (read: Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton: “Soulless, Principle-Free, Power Hungry…”).

. A less hillbilly version of George W. Bush. I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. I dare them to prove me wrong.

Rand recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show. At the end, Bill said:

I think it’s only a good thing for America, when I’m not sure who I’m gonna vote for next time.
Full clip -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc

Think about that for a minute. Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get all the libertarian votes, all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office), and a lot more genuine liberal/progressive votes than you might think.

He is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. That’s why Rand Paul is Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.

With an eye on a potential 2016 bid for the White House, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues to test whether his libertarian-leaning message can attract new voters to the Republican Party. His appearance on liberal commentator Bill Maher’s HBO talk show last Friday (along with this interview) helped fuel the notion that unlike most other key figures from either major party, Paul is willing to talk with audiences who may not be disposed to agree with him.

Of course, there are plenty who scoff at the idea of a Tea Party icon being the face of a sweeping coalition. Skepticism has been especially fierce — including at this site — when Paul has attempted to reach out to African-American voters, with critics noting Paul’s disapproval (as a Senate candidate four years ago) of a key provision of the 1964 Civil Right Act barring discrimination among private business.

On the other hand, for a younger generation of voters feeling ignored by Democrats, Paul’s present-day position on U.S. drug laws and criminal justice reforms have appeal:
 
Embedded tweets at site


The senator, who has been referred to as the “most interesting man in Washington,” seems intent on testing whether a candidate who has openly courted the fringe of American politics can successfully attract wider support in this current political climate.

Paul talked to Salon this week about this attempt to broaden his appeal, particularly to non-white and young voters, why his party establishment still seems to have Romney fever, and whether he’d give up his Senate seat to seek the White House in 2016. Our conversation follows, lightly condensed and edited.

(CNN) -- Vincent Harris, Ted Cruz's top digital operative, is leaving the Texas senator's team to work for Sen. Rand Paul's political operation, as the jostling for staff ramps up ahead of the 2016 GOP presidential primary contest.

Harris will join Rand Paul's political action committee and his 2016 team as a chief digital strategist, according to Doug Stafford, executive director of RAND PAC.

Stafford said Harris will sit at the "top of the leadership team," as Paul and his inner circle carry out what's expected to be a dizzying political schedule. Paul will likely announce his Senate re-election bid in the coming days, and he's said he'll make a decision on a White House run in the spring.

Paul's team was attracted to Harris' push for Republicans to make digital operations a more robust part of campaigns, Stafford said. "We want to be leaders on that," he continued, saying Harris will focus on strategies involving data, websites, and social media among other things.

Harris, 26, runs Harris Media, a digital strategy firm based out of Austin that has more than 20 employees. The firm helped reinvent Sen. Mitch McConnell's digital presence ahead of the Kentucky senator's successful re-election win this fall.
...
While Harris has had a number of widely-known clients — Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich — he gained a higher profile of his own after helping Cruz defeat Lt. Gov David Dewhurst for the GOP Senate nomination in 2012, throttling Cruz from a long-shot candidate who had never run for office to one of the biggest upset candidates of the year.
...
A staunch opponent to the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, Paul has sought to make himself a key ally for Silicon Valley and the tech world. His team plans to open a San Francisco office, where he's traveled multiple times this year, and he's trying to use his tech-savvy focus to connect with young voters on college campuses.

Harris, who lives in Austin but plans to travel frequently to Washington and Louisville, said there's a host of programmers and designers in Austin who "aren't excited about a lot of potential 2016 candidates but who are very excited about Rand Paul."

"I don't think there's going to be any problem in finding top-tiered talent," he said, adding Paul's team "will be embracing the tech community with open arms."

​Over the past 18 months, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has made a habit of showing up places where he's not expected—at UC Be​rkeley and the National Urban League Confer​ence, co-sponsoring Kirsten G​illibrand's bill on sexual assault in the military, at Larry Ellison's house, in ​Ferguson. So I wasn't totally surprised to see him pop up on HBO this weekend, chatting it up with Bill Maher about climate change, the drug war, and the Islamic State.

Wearing one of his mock turtlenecks, the Republican senator was friendly, even chummy, with his liberal host, dropping dad jokes about politicians and Maher's misspent youth. It was classic Paul: affable, earnest, occasionally tone-deaf—but nonetheless interesting, the word m​ost often used to describe Paul and his political ambitions. Even on climate change, an issue where he and Maher obviously disagree, the senator was conciliatory, looking for some environmental policy "middle ground" where Democrats and Republicans could agree. And as the interview wound down, and Maher's questions turned to the drug war and foreign policy, Paul won him over.

"I think it's only a good thing for America when I'm not sure whom I'm going to vote for next time," was how Maher signed off.

This, of course, was exactly the reaction Paul was looking for. The Kentucky Tea Party darling has positioned himself as the bridge between Republicans and the world outside the GOP bubble, building his all-but-declared presidential campaign around the idea that his libertarian views can broaden the party's appeal beyond old white men. Now, with that campaign basically underway, Paul's willingness to break with the hawks in his party—and to openly court a Hollywood liberal like Maher—is also an invitation to throw down with his Republican opponents, only intensifies internal party divisions over national security and foreign policy that will likely define the GOP race in 2016.

The groundwork for this battle was laid last month, with Paul's speech to the Center for National Interest, a realist foreign policy think tank founded by Nixon acolytes. In a stuffy hotel ballroom on Central Park South, he laid out his foreign policy doctrine, christened "conservative realism," moonwalking the line between Republican hawkishness and non-interventionism.

"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate," Paul told the ballroom. "America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldn't fight wars that aren't authorized by the American people, by Congress. America should and will fight wars when the consequences—intended and unintended—are worth the sacrifice. The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world."

Unlike his remarks to Maher, the CNI speech was obviously tailored to a Republican audience—in this case, a motley crew of Orthodox Jewish leaders, Nixon-era State Department wonks, and Grover Norquist. But beyond the obligatory praise of Ronald Reagan and equally obligatory jabs at Barack Obama, Paul's message seemed to be a repudiation of the post-9/11 foreign policies that have dragged the US through more than a decade of wars. "Stalemate and perpetual policing seem to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria," he said. "A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can't have perpetual war."

The speech didn't go nearly as far as some doves—including some fans of Paul's famously irascible father Ron—would have hoped. And his support for military intervention in Afghanistan, and against the Islamic State, seem particularly inconsistent with his not-fighting-any-wars-that-lack-a-plan-for-victory. But it succeeded in pitting Paul against his likely Republican presidential opponents—most of whom are still banging the drum for Bush-era "Mission Accomplished" jingoism—and also against the drone strikes and selective interventions of Obama and Hillary Clinton, the all-but-guaranteed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

The speech was also remarkably well received ("I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking," quipped Norquist), elating Paul and his staff and emboldening his nascent campaign to take on the hawks. His camp's argument has always been that while the political establishment continues to buy into the post-9/11 war on terror doctrine, Paul is poised to tap into a growing isolationist streak among voters disillusioned and alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Paul is looking for a fight, he's going to find one. The neocon wing of the GOP is in the midst of a resurgence thanks to public discontent over Obama's handling of foreign policy. All the new Republican senators elected in 2014 embrace more hawkish positions than Paul, which means that the neocon caucus will have a clear majority when the GOP takes control of the upper chamber next year. "The cavalry is coming over the hill!" South Carolina hawk ​Lindsey Graham gleefully told Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post's resident neocon. That leaves Paul as a lone voice of dissent as the Senate grapples with questions like whether to send combat troops in to fight against the Islamic State, whether to keep troops in Afghanistan, and whether to approve a possible nuclear agreement with Iran. Since returning for the lame-duck last week, Paul has already said he will vote against the ​NSA​ reform package currently being considered in the Senate, in part because it extends the Patriot Act until 2017.

Paul's positions put him in the center of an internecine battle that will, in all likelihood, define the Republican 2016 presidential race. In recent months, a steady parade of Paul's potential rivals have tried to pick fights over his supposed isolationism, jockeying to position themselves in relation to the libertarian-ish senator's foreign policy views. But Paul has mostly stayed steady, confident that this is a battle he will win. Win or lose, there's no question that he's got the party fighting on his terms.

Former presidential candidate and Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul raised about $40 million when he ran for the nation's top office in 2012.

That seems like a lot of money, and a heck of a fundraising base for the ex-congressman's son, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, to build from should he decide to make a run of his own in 2016.


But the man who won the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, spent more than $75 million, and that doesn't include another roughly $50 million in super PAC money spent on his behalf. And that was just to win the nomination.


So one of the many big questions still facing Paul, weeks from announcing his re-election effort and a winter away from announcing whether he will run for president, is whether he can raise the big money necessary to mount a winning presidential run.


Mitch McConnell, the incoming U.S. Senate majority leader, certainly knows a thing or two about big-time fundraising, and Kentucky's senior senator has certainly opened doors to establishment donors for his junior colleague.


When the final Federal Election Commission finance reports from the 2014 election come out, McConnell will show he raised more than $30 million for his re-election effort, shattering the record he set in 2008.


The woman who spearheaded that effort, Laura Sequeira, who was finance director for McConnell's campaign, has signed on to help Paul, along with Erika Sather, who raised big bucks for successful Arkansas Senate candidate Tom Cotton.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is correct in claiming that President Obama’s decision to send 1,500 more soldiers back to Iraq is illegal. We now have over 3,000 American soldiers back in a country we left in 2011, when the president fulfilled a promise of ending the Iraq War. The illegality of the Obama’s decision lies in the fact that Congress has not been consulted on matters that could easily lead to another war. Sending military advisers to train Iraqis seems to be a last ditch effort at succumbing to media and political pressure on the part of our president. Nobody wants to be in the White House if Bagdad falls to ISIL, but Saigon fell in 1975 and Gerald Ford didn’t send Americans back to Vietnam. ISIL indeed poses a threat, but not enough of threat to jettison Constitutional principles in the name of national security.

Paul, in a recent Daily Beast op-ed, explains exactly why Obama is breaching certain laws by increasing troop levels without consulting the American people. The Kentucky senator cites both the Constitution and the War Powers Act to highlight Obama’s overreach in doubling the size of our military presence in Iraq:


"If the Constitution were not enough, the War Powers Act reiterates the legislature’s prerogative. The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period. The only exception is military action to repel an imminent attack. In that case, the president has 60 days to report to Congress. Obviously, it’s an exception that doesn’t apply to any of our current wars."


....

I’m a liberal, a Democrat, and I’m waiting for fellow liberals to be as outraged as I am about the president’s decision to send soldiers back into a quagmire. Is Paul right about the hypocrisy of Democrats? I hate to say it, but he’s absolutely correct in this respect, and in regards to this issue.

It’s an interesting time in American politics when Rand Paul is protecting liberal values and Democrats haven’t uttered a word of indignation over Obama’s decision to send troops back into war. Congress and the American people should be debating the troop level decisions, and until then, the legality of sending more American soldiers back into a war that already ended is highly questionable. Paul is correct, Obama has exceeded his authority on this matter, succumbed to media and political pressures, and has ignored the lessons of the Iraq War. Most importantly, he’s ignored the laws already in place limiting his authority to send Americans into battle and everyone should be outraged.

Sen. Rand Paul, a fierce critic of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance programs, will oppose the NSA reform bill in the Senate in large part because it includes an extension of the Patriot Act, a senior Paul aide said Friday.
Known as the USA Freedom Act and proposed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the bill bans bulk collection of Americans' phone records by placing narrower limitations on government searches.

The legislation also extends the Patriot Act's sunset from June 2015 to December 2017.
The Senate will vote probably next Tuesday whether to take up and begin debate on the bill. It's unclear if they'll have the votes to move forward, but with Paul's opposition, it will make it that much tougher to clear that procedural hurdle.
Paul "strongly favors reforming the NSA" and while he may have been expected to support the current bill, a senior aide said the Kentucky Republican won't back the legislation.

"Due to significant problems with the bill, at this point he will oppose the Leahy bill," the aide told CNN. The aide pointed out the extension of the Patriot Act as a key issue, but declined to name other "significant problems."
Obama, Congress working on changes to NSA

The aide said that if the Patriot Act provision were dropped from the bill and if some of the reforms were strengthened, Paul would be more likely to support it.

The bill's Republican sponsors include Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democratic sponsors include Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Dick Durbin of Illinois, among others.

NSA reform efforts began in earnest after former contractor Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the agency's domestic spying program last year.

Paul earlier this year filed a lawsuit against the government over its phone metadata collection effort, but the lawsuit was eventually put on hold.

"President Rand Paul will keep you safer than the president who brought America into Iraq and Afghanistan, the same man who in 2000 argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. He'll keep you safer than the president who just doubled America's military presence in Iraq, yet in 2011 promised, "The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year." Rand Paul will also keep you safer than Hillary Clinton, a centrist with a neoconservative advisor named Robert Kagan who is quoted in The New York Times as saying, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy." Rand Paul will also defend you against terrorism and other national security threats better than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and any of the other sycophants in American politics. Why? The answer lies in who doesn't want Senator Paul to be the next president of the United States.

Let's assume you've never heard of Rand Paul. The mere fact that John Yoo, author of Bush's Torture Memos, thinks Paul should not be president is reason enough to consider voting for the Kentucky Senator. Yoo, a man The Guardian has stated "continues to defend the indefensible" by claiming waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods are not torture, explains his viewpoint in a recent National Review piece titled, Why Rand Paul Is Wrong about the ISIS War Being Illegal -- and Shouldn't Be President:

We should never put someone in the Oval Office who thinks that the United States can only use force when it is actually attacked, as he argues. That is the mindset that led the United States to ignore events in Europe as they spiraled out of control 100 years ago and to withdraw from the continent in the interwar years, leaving it to fascists who ultimately drew the U.S. back into another destructive war...

...Congress enacted in 2001 an authorization to use force against any group connected to those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. If the Islamic State is linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, as it appears to be (though this depends on the facts), they fall within the AUMF.

In classic Bush era fashion, Yoo makes the link between 9/11 and Islamic State, an egregious leap of logic that would also warrant a military strike against Saudi Arabia. Yoo also ignores Paul's repeated statements like "Taking military action against ISIS is justified" only with Congressional approval."

President Rand Paul will keep you safer than the others because while the danger of terrorism will always exist in some manner, our values as a nation might not withstand the test of time with politicians paranoid over the next big threat. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I'm tired of terrorism causing us never-ending wars and political paranoia at home. If it's a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul (Elizabeth Warren would be a different story) in 2016, I'm jettisoning many of my liberal values to vote for the Kentucky Senator. I'm tired of fighting against a word that sends our soldiers into perpetual counterinsurgency wars and only Rand Paul seems to be addressing this sad political reality. At least I'll know that the next big threat America faces will be addressed by a president who consults Congress, engages in a national debate about military action, and puts long-term security above short-term political expediency.

In preparation for his all-but-announced 2016 presidential bid, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, gathered staffers and political advisers from across the country for a meeting in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday.

The meeting, just eight days after midterm elections that saw Republicans seize the Senate majority and strengthen their grip on the House, was described as an opportunity for Paul and his advisers to pivot from the midterms to the next presidential cycle.

"As I understand it, this meeting is to both literally and symbolically change focus after the November election," one person who was invited told National Journal, "and begin to take deliberate action toward a potential 2016 run."

"This is the come-to-Jesus before the planned launch," added another adviser.

Doug Wead, a presidential historian and adviser to Paul who attended Wednesday's meeting, told CBS News the gathering was "mind-blowing" in its organization.

"Have been a part of nine presidential campaigns in one way or another, this is the best organized, most intelligent I have seen yet," he said. "This crew has a sense of making history, of impacting the system, of ending corruption. They are young, attractive, smart, tech savvy, black, white, male, female. This event is supposed to be working on organizing the upcoming work, but this event itself is a model of efficiency."

The gathering of talent was perhaps the most obvious sign yet that Paul is on the cusp of announcing a presidential bid, but the Kentucky senator hasn't exactly made a secret of his ambition.

He kept a busy schedule during the 2014 midterms, helping Republicans up and down ballot in an attempt to build relationships--and earn favors--before the 2016 race begins in earnest. He's hired key staffers in early caucus and primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. And he's made an effort to build credibility among the Republican establishment, which has occasionally looked askance at his quick rise in the party.

That skepticism can be blamed, at least in part, on Paul's father, former Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, a hero among conservative libertarians due to his opposition to foreign military intervention and his push to audit the Federal Reserve. The elder Paul, according to the Wall Street Journal, was not expected to attend Wednesday's strategy session.

Ron Paul's presidential campaigns were powered by a devoted core of disciples who were never quite able to turn their candidate into a genuine contender. Rand Paul has been steadily working at avoiding his father's more marginal appeal by hewing closer to the party's center on foreign policy and economic issues.

There are signs that his courtship of the old guard is paying off. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Paul's colleague from Kentucky and the leader of the Senate GOP, is about as establishment as a Republican can get. McConnell has said Paul can count on his support if he runs in 2016.

Nov. 11, 2014 7:55 p.m. ET
0 COMMENTS
Steps by Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) toward launching a presidential campaign in the wake of his party’s midterm sweep are raising questions about the role of his political mentor and father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul .

The elder Mr. Paul isn’t expected to be there on Wednesday when his son convenes political advisers from around the country for a private powwow in Washington, the latest sign that the 79-year-old former congressman may be on the sidelines of his son’s expected White House bid.

The gathering comes eight days after the Republican Party’s decisive victory in the midterm election, which drew far different reactions from father and son.

Sen. Paul had campaigned for many of the GOP winners, and the results handed him a chance to advance his legislative agenda as a member of the new Republican Senate majority. The election also sealed Sen. Paul’s alliance with fellow Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell , the presumptive new majority leader.

MORE IN CAPITAL JOURNAL

Harry Reid Remains Power Player As Senate Shifts
Sign Up: Capital Journal newsletter
“Tonight, we begin to rebuild America,’’ Sen. Paul told a cheering crowd at Mr. McConnell’s victory party.

By contrast, the former congressman shrugged at his party’s big win, which gave it control of the Senate.

“Don’t expect big changes,” the elder Mr. Paul posted on Twitter on Nov. 4, saying he expected that the new Congress would fail to cut spending and would lead the U.S. into a protracted war in Syria and Iraq.

“The change in control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican actually means very little, despite efforts by politicians and the mainstream media to convince us otherwise,” Mr. Paul added in a column posted with a group affiliated with him.

The contrasting views reflect the different paths taken by father and son, with the younger Paul determined to be taken seriously by a Republican establishment that considered the elder Paul a fringe candidate in his own White House bids. He ran once as a Libertarian and twice as a Republican.

Both Messrs. Paul draw support from the libertarian movement, which has provided them with a committed cadre of volunteers in their respective campaigns. But Sen. Paul also has taken a number of steps to broaden his appeal, reaching out to the party’s large-dollar donors, the business community and African-American leaders.

Many Republicans expect Ron Paul to remain on the edges of his son’s likely campaign, more visible online than in public, possibly helping to raise money and mobilize support in the libertarian community.

“The trick is for Rand to continue to get the best of both worlds—to capture his dad’s supporters who are so passionate, but also to show he is his own person with views and relationships in the mainstream of the Republican Party,” said Trey Grayson, who lost to Mr. Paul in the 2010 Republican Senate primary in Kentucky.

Mr. McConnell backed Mr. Grayson in that race, then threw his support to Mr. Paul in the general election. Ron Paul attended only a couple of public events during his son’s Senate campaign.

In some respects, Sen. Paul seems to have two political godfathers: Ron Paul, revered in the tea party movement that launched his son into the Senate, and Mr. McConnell, arguably the most powerful Republican in Washington, who said two days after the election that Mr. Paul could count on him if he ran for president.

Sen. Paul has said he would not make a formal announcement about a White House bid until the spring.

Meanwhile, he is expected to turn to Mr. McConnell for support on his legislative priorities, including bills that would reduce sentences on nonviolent drug offenders and offer a temporary tax holiday for U.S. companies to repatriate offshore profits.

Sen. Paul’s spokesman declined to answer questions about Ron Paul’s involvement in a possible 2016 presidential campaign. Attempts to reach Ron Paul were unsuccessful.

In this year’s elections, Sen. Paul supported Mr. McConnell over a tea party challenger in Kentucky’s GOP primary. For Mr. Paul, the alliance earned goodwill from business groups and established GOP donors but gave pause to some conservatives, who think Mr. McConnell is beholden to corporate interests and who fault him for striking deals with Democrats that raised the debt ceiling.

Mr. Paul also stepped closer to the mainstream of his party—and parted with his father—by supporting U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.

Drew Ivers, who helped lead Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns in Iowa in 2008 and 2012, said he isn’t ready to commit to Mr. Paul’s son. He cited unease with Mr. McConnell and U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, as well as family obligations.

“I’m going to watch the field to develop a little more,” said Mr. Ivers, who had dinner with Rand Paul when he visited Iowa in August. “I also want to see how Rand negotiates a few more obstacles in the course he is taking.”

Chris Stearns, who worked on Ron Paul’s campaign in Virginia, said he probably would help Rand Paul, but in a more limited capacity.

“There are a small group of folks who won’t support Rand because they’ve come to the conclusion that he is a sellout,” Mr. Stearns said. “I just think he’s being pragmatic. At the end of the day, Rand’s base of support is so much broader than his father’s.”

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has made key decisions about how to launch his presidential campaign for the 2016 Republican nomination, including a plan to headquarter his effort in Louisville and opting to run for re-election to the Senate at the same time he moves forward with the national race.

Coming off a midterm campaign blitz in 35 states, Paul has summoned a few dozen advisers – a mix of veterans of his father Ron Paul’s insurgent campaigns and more mainstream GOP leaders — for a closed-door summit at a Washington hotel on Wednesday to discuss his future plans.
...

Paul, who will face a much more crowded field on the Republican side but starts out as a slight front-runner in public polls, has begun an aggressive early campaign against Clinton. ... “And also, she didn’t think through the unintended consequences of getting involved in the Libyan war. So I think you’d have an interesting dynamic, were there's a [Republican] nominee that was for less intervention overseas and in the Middle East and that’s fiscally conservative. You’ve never seen that kind of combination before, and I think there’s a lot of independent voters, actually, that might be attracted to that kind of message.”
...

[H]is advisers have already laid out a timetable: They expect the campaign will be a “go” by mid-April, with an announcement as quickly after that as his staff can put together a fly-around to the early states.

Before zeroing in on Louisville as Paul’s likely campaign headquarters, advisers reached out to veterans of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign to consult on the advisability and specific requirements of running a national campaign from outside Washington, deciding the symbolic importance of basing the campaign in his home state outweighed any concerns about easy access for Washington-based staffers and political operatives from across the country.
...

Kentucky has a law preventing a candidate from running for more than one office at a time, but Paul advisers believe they have found multiple ways around the restriction without changing the law or challenging it in court, including exploring changing the state’s GOP primary to a caucus.
...

[H]e’s already built what top GOP operatives consider by far the most extensive operation of any of the party’s presidential hopefuls...

Paul was endorsed for president last week by incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell...

Headed into the presidential campaign, leading Paul advisers include Jesse Benton, a longtime Paul family operative, who lives in Louisville; Doug Stafford, who is considered Paul’s chief strategist and leading planner of his presidential campaign; Nate Morris, an entrepreneur who recently was named to Fortune’s “40 Under 40” list and has been a Paul door-opener in Silicon Valley and beyond; and Doug Wead, who has been helping with outreach to evangelicals. His media consultant is Rex Elsass, CEO of the Ohio-based The Strategy Group for Media.

In the states with early presidential primaries and caucuses, the team includes: John Yob, a Michigan consultant and former John McCain operative who is RAND PAC’s national political director; in New Hampshire, Mike Biundo, who managed Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential campaign; and in Iowa, Steve Grubbs and A.J. Spiker, both former chairs of the state Republican Party.

His top outside foreign-policy advisers are Lorne Craner, a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush; and Elise Jordan, a former speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Sergio Gor, who heads Paul’s communications team, is a social-media guru...

Scott Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996 and now is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s senior political strategist, said: “In any two-week period of this last six months, Rand Paul did more smart things to grow the party than everyone else combined. Going to Berkeley and barrios and ghettos – he’s not afraid to go where no one else wants to go.”

The president is subverting the Constitution—and America’s latest undeclared war in the Middle East is just the latest example.
For a generation, Democrats stood up against Republican presidents who they deemed to be too eager to go to war—or too ready to put troops in harm’s way without the full consent of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress.

Where have those Democratic protectors of the constitutional authority of Congress gone? Was it always just a partisan attack on Republican presidents?

If not, when will Democrats—who so vociferously opposed a Republican president’s extraconstitutional war-making powers—stand up and oppose President Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of war-making powers?

Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman puts it succinctly: “The war against the Islamic State is now illegal. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gave President Obama 60 days to gain consent from Congress and required him to end ‘hostilities’ within 30 days if he failed to do so. This 90-day clock expired this week.” And yet, there’s been no consent, and no end to the fighting.

I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war. I also believe the War Powers Act is misunderstood; President Obama acted without true constitutional authority even before the 90 days expired, since we were not under attack at that time.

But in either case, this war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended.

Seriously, they need to amend the US constitution to prohibit, a sibling, father, mother, daughter, son, or (former) spouse from being president if their sibling, father, mother, daughter, son, or spouse has been president.

Basically, in simple terms, they need to prohibit a one-generation connection (or spouse) of a former president from ending up in the role of president. Two generations of separation (grandparent to grandchild) is fine, but anything closer than that is ridiculous.