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+1Email 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
emptywheel Great news! FBI Field Offices Don’t See the Point in Racial Profiling https://t.co/aFsjhxsFIr Sadly, new report tells them they have to.
39mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JebBoone: #Yemen official tells me airstrikes destroyed #US equipment delivered to Sana'a, including a CASA 235-300 transporter, HUEY I…
46mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Never a good sign when more people are streaming out of the ballpark than in. Tarp out and waiting for now. http://t.co/9yyXEf6JpN
55mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ArmyJew Fair enough. Just working on past history. @JeffreyGoldberg @rickhasen
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ArmyJew Like Israeli jets in the neighborhood? @JeffreyGoldberg @rickhasen
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ArmyJew Oh. Sorry. I was thinking "centrifuges that might be civilian." Don't we have some in non-bunker labs? @JeffreyGoldberg @rickhasen
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ArmyJew We'd blow up the Iraqi and Syrian nuke facilities if they weren't in a bunker? Did we? @JeffreyGoldberg @rickhasen
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @elonjames Also, "no damn cocktail until you sit down and get out of the way for everyone else."
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel .@JeffreyGoldberg Given Israel's habit of blowing up stuff that's not in a bunker? @rickhasen
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @occbaystreet Going on court. Note that we know where he got his remote control stuff from (updated post). Amazon & CA place. @onekade
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @occbaystreet Assuming they don't check IP. But that's not where he would have done search. @onekade
2hreplyretweetfavorite