Democrats Refuse Non-Binding Resolution Limiting Presidential Drones against Non-Combatants, Too

I noted earlier that Eric Holder suggested that a law prohibiting the use of drones against non-combatant Americans in the US would be unconstitutional.

Grassley: Do you believe Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the President’s authority to use drone aircraft to use lethal force against Americans on US soil and if not, why not?

Holder: I’m not sure that such a bill would be constitutional. It might run contrary to the Article II powers that the President has.

That’s interesting background for a move Rand Paul tried at roughly hour 8 of his filibuster.

He proposed a non-binding resolution saying precisely what Grassley had laid out 10 hour earlier, voicing the position of the Senate to be opposed to the “use of drones to target Americans on American soil who pose no imminent threat.”

As I understand it, the resolution was independent from the Brennan nomination (so it would not disrupt that, aside from a vote).

But — as just one of two Democrats to show up during this filibuster (Ron Wyden showed up in support during the 3:00 hour) — Dick Durbin showed up to oppose Paul’s unanimous consent to call for that resolution.

Durbin promised his subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold a hearing on drones. Nevertheless, he objected to Paul’s resolution. He suggested more Constitutional review of this simple measure was needed.

A leader of the Democratic party (and the President’s fellow Chicagoan) opposed a non-binding resolution prohibiting the use of drones in the US against non-combatants out of Constitutional concerns.

I’ve got a lot of theories why that might be. A belief this is all about making trouble for another nomination. insistence that nothing limit potential Article II claims.

But I keep thinking about the fact that there’s a wrongful death suit out there, with state secrets as the fallback claim crumbling with the public discussion.

Tweet about this on Twitter28Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook28Google+2Email to someone

9 Responses to Democrats Refuse Non-Binding Resolution Limiting Presidential Drones against Non-Combatants, Too

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @JeffreyToobin Alex actually indicated guillotine would be best. But said people probably wouldn't accept its use.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @benjaminwittes @JimmySky Curious what makes either one of you think these orgs/people owe tweeting about subject out of their wheelhouse?
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @john_dingell: I'm the last original author of the Clean Water Act, but I have no idea who/what a Kardashian is and I rarely play games.…
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Has @EPAwater landed yet?
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DavidSug @ColMorrisDavis @JTBojanglesXXXL I just think the complaint itself is more indicative of his lack of skill than ticky tack stuff.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DavidSug @ColMorrisDavis @JTBojanglesXXXL Oh, I bet he doesn't know shit about litigating in District Court. But kickbacks are common w/ECF
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ColMorrisDavis @JTBojanglesXXXL It is a shitty complaint, that is the issue.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ColMorrisDavis @JTBojanglesXXXL I had a filing doc kicked back from ECF my last case and I am there regularly. Not as easy as you think.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JTBojanglesXXXL @ColMorrisDavis The problems are with the pleading of his complaint, not this two bit crap.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JTBojanglesXXXL @ColMorrisDavis Meh, thats a pretty standard form issued to just about every pro se litigant. Lots of people screw that up
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @brahmresnik: MORE Just 23 children left at @CustomsBorder facility in #Nogales as it phases out, per CBP spox. New #Texas facility will…
9hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @michaelwhitney: my dad took a picture with michael steele in vegas, guys http://t.co/3V0MMSoZfO
9hreplyretweetfavorite