Rand Paul showed he fails US History when he told Sean Hannity that our founding fathers were against a "monarchy" and "did not want the President to become a king." Which -- is factually wrong. Some founding fathers - like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams - actually urged delegates at the Constitutional Convention to create a monarchy and urged the head of the monarchy to be king of America.
Yes, it is true and documents show that founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and John Adams did, in fact, want a monarchy-ruled government complete with a King.
Fact is, they wanted the President to be ‘an unhereditary substitute’ for a king, with an elective monarch serving for fixed terms. In other words, they wanted the head of the Executive Branch to have more power than any other Branch.
Sean Hannity played a CBN News where Rand Paul falsely claimed that the Revolutionary War was fought to get rid of the monarchy.
RAND PAUL: "I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."At no time did Hannity tell Rand Paul he was wrong and that the colonists had no intention of becoming independent from Britain when the Revolutionary War began.
I think any high school history student would have told Rand Paul he has no idea what he is talking about. The Revolutionary War had absolutely nothing to do with fighting to get rid of the "monarchy." The Revolutionary War was because the colonists wanted Representation in the House of Burgess hence the 1750's phrase "No Taxation without Representation"
Rand Paul was not finished highlighting his own ignorance this week as he told Sean Hannity that he was "proposing" a Bill that would "nullify" any Executive Order "we" (whoever 'we' is) thinks is not constitutional.
RAND PAUL: "In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation."To "nullify" means to abolish, having no legal force or binding effect - hence the phrase "null and void."
To me, one of the problems with Rand Paul's nullification comment is he did not say who the "we" are that would be doing the "nullifying." The US Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to "nullify" an Executive Order - as the Constitution only grants the Judicial Branch the authority to determine if an Executive Order and/or Legislation is to be "nullified" due to the EO or Legislation's Constitutionality.
If Rand Paul's Bill attempts to let Congress determine "nullification" then his Bill would violate the Separation of Powers -- which, ironically, Paul told Hannity was what Paul wanted to protect via his Bill.
RAND PAUL: "This idea of checks and balances and separation of powers should be a fundamental one,"How ironic, as Rand Paul blathered on about wanting to protect the Constitution, he is talking about writing a Bill that would violate the Constitution.
I would like to help Rand Paul and Sean Hannity learn factual history and show them that the Revolutionary War had nothing at all to do with wanting to get rid of a monarchy.
In April 1775, the first shots of were fired in Lexington and Concord. At that time there was not, I repeat not, any support for the colonies to have Independence from Britain. In fact, the colonists were still, even in 1775, very loyal to Britain and very proud to be British subjects.
Throughout 1775, the colonists viewed themselves as "rebelling" against their inability to vote for members of Parliament - because the colonists wanted to elect representatives who would be involved in taxation.
In July 1775, the Continental Congress issued the Olive Branch Petition in which the colonists professed their loyalty to Britain.
We beg leave further to assure your Majesty that notwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal colonists during the course of the present controversy, our breasts retain too tender a regard for the kingdom from which we derive our origin to request such a reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her dignity or her welfare.Fourth:
~Olive Branch Petition; written in July 1775 Continental Congress.
In July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress drafted the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms" which rejected the notion that colonists wanted independence
We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.While the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms" underscored the colonist's loyalty to Britain, it also outlined the the history of the controversy over laws that had affected the colonists who were not represented in Parliament.
~Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.
Written in 1775 by: Thomas Jefferson and Colonel John Dickinson
The colonists were not willing to become independent from Britain until July 1776 - which was 1 year 3 months after the first shots were fired.
Perhaps Rand Paul thinks the Revolutionary War began on July 4, 1776?
The facts are clear and historical documents show that the Revolutionary War had nothing at all to do with colonists not liking a monarchy rule.
Rand Paul is just completely, factually wrong when he spews his nonsense: "I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."
Executive Orders date all the way back to President George Washington -- meh, but it doesn't sound like Rand Paul deals in fact which is why he botched up the reason for the Revolutionary War.
In 1989, as a result of the Stockton school massacre, President H.W. Bush signed an Executive Order that banned the import of many semiautomatic weapons. To date, the Supreme Court never overturned that EO.
Rand Paul clearly fails history and his own "nullification" Bill would violate the separation of powers that he claims are "fundamental."
RAND PAUL: "This idea of checks and balances and separation of powers should be a fundamental one"Yes, Rand, separation of powers should be a fundamental one, maybe you should go learn what "separation of powers" means.
Like I said, as Rand Paul blathered on about wanting to protect the Constitution, he is talking about writing a Bill that would violate the Constitution.
Oh, and I am waiting for the interview where Rand Paul declares the Earth is really flat.