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 Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+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 RT @djsziff: Then referred to the President who saved the Union as a "McConaughey-shilled pseudo-luxury sedan." https://t.co/riWwXlkmwt
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Martinis?!?!?! Have you ever even BEEN to Ann Arbor!?!?! Think I saw about 7 martinis in 15 years there. @JohnDingell
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ThusBloggedA See?!?! Also you're prolly a bacon loyalist. @JasnTru
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ThusBloggedA You don't know that. I liked dirtbags for my first ~5 boyfriends. Changed my taste after a while. @JasnTru
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel .@JasnTru What I'm struck by is I had remembered Miss Piggy to be buxom. But she's not, really. Maybe Kermit likes flat-chested women?
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Kermit the Frog girlfriend cleavage is a weird thing.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @PhilPerspective No no no no. When a Wolverine Jet gets treated better than a Wolvering Pat you KNOW something's up.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @ProFootballTalk: Jay Feely told Judge Berman about the 2009 Jets K ball incident, which resulted in no investigation of the kicker http…
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz No no, Khan was just collateral damage. Really, that's what my government told me. https://t.co/Bwu8CFx97h
6hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV When will the #Rays ever learn that Kirby Yates has no business in #MLB?
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Green_Footballs @nytimes @SusieMadrak Maybe @Sulliview has an answer for why NYT can't report this as critically as others?
6hreplyretweetfavorite