Sen. Rand Paul is on the rampage against President Trump’s attack on Syria last week.
In an exclusive column for Breitbart, Paul argues that it’s a little hypocritical for Republicans to overwhelmingly support Neil Gorsuch as a constitutional originalist fit for the Supreme Court and then at the same time support a unilateral military attack that was not constitutionally sanctioned by Congress.
It’s a compelling argument that could end up splitting the GOP over support for Trump’s tough military stance.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
Today, I cast the 51st vote to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is a vote I am proud of, and I hope to remain proud of for decades to come.
Republicans fought hard to confirm Justice Gorsuch, and with good reason. The reason many of them gave the full strength of their support was because they believed Justice Gorsuch would follow the Constitution – adhering to the original text and meaning. He is from a group of legal scholars who consider themselves “Originalists.”
While many Republicans fawned over this quality, they displayed remarkable cognitive dissonance when it came to applying it to a very public event the very day they approved the Gorsuch nomination.
You see, too many of my colleagues have forgotten what it means to be an “Originalist” on the matter of going to war.
Our Founding Fathers found this to be one of the most important discussions at the time, and they were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the President. They were concerned an executive with that kind of power could choose to rule like a King.
Before sending our young men and women into battle, we should have a thoughtful and honest discussion about the ramifications, authorization, and motivations for war.
That could be done if we were all Originalists; not just for the court, but for our legislative duties as well.
