Preserve it, protect it, defend it
We all welcomed the few days of sunshine that recently brightened and interrupted our long winter. And so, too, I appreciate Sen. Rand Paul, who has sparked optimism in our country again.
Paul courageously defended our Constitution and, surprisingly, got a good deal of attention. Not from the mainstream media or the White House but from many young people viewing the issue on the Internet — everyday people and even liberals (such as Sen. Ron Widen of Oregon and actor John Cusack), who were all appalled at this administration's blatant disregard for the Constitution in their unapologetic use of drones, even potentially against Americans.
Paul's old-fashioned filibuster, which easily could have backfired, forced President Obama's attorney general to give a long-overdue answer, admitting that the president has no authority to unilaterally order such strikes, thus acknowledging that the Constitution still has validity today.
Hopefully, the American public is waking up to the idea that the Constitution is the one thing that unites us all — Democrat and Republican, gay and straight, rich and poor, black, white and Hispanic, Christian, Jew and atheist. It gives the federal government some authority to allow this country to function but stops it from trampling our individual and state's rights.
Our Constitution is the one thing that differentiates us from other nations and we must fight to preserve it. Thank God we still have representatives such as Rand Paul who are willing to stick their necks out for such a noble and yet often ignored document.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Voting insanity
- Postal questions
- Bible under attack
- Family first
- Gruber, then & now III
- Gruber, then & now II
- Gruber, then & now I
- On right track
- Quarantine quandary
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Enforce immigration laws