Senator Rand Paul’s June 7, 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney for President in 2012 came as no surprise to me, as I predicted as far back as 2009 that he wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate for the U.S. Senate, and my unpopular prediction was further vindicated with this endorsement, so why are so many others surprised by his decision?
On December 31, 2010, I wrote the article, The U.S. Senate regularly violates the law, about my shocking discovery that U.S. Senators were regularly conducting business and passing legislation without the constitutionally mandated quorum of a majority of Senators in order to conduct business.
In it, I responded with a January 9, 2011 comment about my assessment of Senator Rand Paul:
“If Rand doesn’t know about that requirement and his duty regarding it, then he’s already no constitutional candidate in my books.
I stopped regarding him as a constitutional candidate once he came out with this November 2009 press release:
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”
If you read his words carefully, there is the possibility that it was a clever attempt to fool “law and order” conservatives into voting for him, so long as he has accepted being a one-term Senator in actually standing for the Constitution in this matter.
However, I suspect he meant it the way I first read it, whereby he regards the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant to foreign “terrorists,” despite the Constitution being a contract between the people and their government, which defined the government’s powers and limits, including its dealings with foreigners.“