Louisville Courier-Journal: Senator Rand Paul writes on foreign aid

After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, I supported the war in Afghanistan. I support the position that no nation or faction should ever be allowed to attack America without swift and overwhelming reprisal.

Washington Times Op-Ed: Demanding justice from Libya, Egypt and Pakistan

By now my colleagues in the Senate are familiar with the tragic story of Pakistani doctor Shakil Afridi. Since Dr. Afridi was taken into custody by Pakistani officials in May 2012, I have been fighting for his release. I have also been working for a vote on a bill that would cut foreign aid to Pakistan until they free this ally of America.

USA Today Op-Ed: Roberts' ruling isn't final

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.

National Review Op-Ed: Opposing Unconstitutional Wars

Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray. The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time. I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party's official budget because it didn't cut enough spending. I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war before that in Iraq. I don't believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship - or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on federalism issues. I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn't believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments. Where I don't know if there is as much of a difference as I would like is foreign policy. Let's first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever. I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken. I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were: I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war. The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are "pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war. Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict. No president is above the law or above the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king. Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature. I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent. - Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the U.S. Senate.  

Huffington Post Op-Ed: Rep. Earl Blumenauer Needs to Brush Up on His Legal Research Skills

On Tuesday, May 8, I had the honor of testifying with Congressman Broun before a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on our bill to repeal and change parts of the Lacey Act.

American Legislator Op-Ed: Sackett Victory Holds EPA Accountable?but by How Much?

On March 19, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded one of its longest-running enforcement matters - a 22-year battle with 80-year-old Massachusetts cranberry farmer and Korean War veteran, Charles Johnson. Mr. Johnson's crimes were neither violent nor extreme. Rather, Mr. Johnson has spent the past 22 years - and $2.5 million - embroiled in litigation with the EPA for the right to expand his cranberry farm. Now, Mr. Johnson and his family must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more to create 26 acres of wetlands and to pay a $75,000 fine to the EPA.

Louisville Courier-Journal Op-Ed: Prioritize to pay for bridges

Here in Kentucky there are now three major bridges in critical need of repair. In addition to the Sherman Minton and the Brent Spence bridges, the Eggner Ferry Bridge in Western Kentucky joined the list when it partially collapsed after being struck by a cargo ship. The day after the incident, I visited the bridge site and met with local officials to assess the situation. Fortunately, no one was injured by the collapse.

Kelley Paul Participates in Wreaths Across America at Kentucky Veterans Cemetery West

Hopkinsville, Ky. -- Kelley Paul, wife of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, spoke to a crowd of nearly three hundred people who gathered in Hopkinsville on Saturday, Dec. 10, to participate in a special annual observance at the Kentucky Veterans Cemetery West. According to Cemetery Director Richard Stanley, this was the first time in the five years that the local cemetery has participated in Wreaths Across America that a wreath has been placed on the grave of every veteran interred at KVCW.

Washington Times Op-Ed: War on terror doesn't justify retreat on rights

James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home." Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."