Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “This lawyer that Obama has nominated to be the next judge seated on the federal bench has now come to the attention of Senator Rand Paul, who wants to know why in dude’s holy name should anyone vote for David Barron, vote for his confirmation for life to the federal bench without first knowing exactly what was in the “you can go ahead and kill Anwar al-Awlaki” memo that Barron is believed to have authored.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Clip of The Day Transcript
Mike: This lawyer that Obama has nominated to be the next judge seated on the federal bench has now come to the attention of Senator Rand Paul, who wants to know why in dude’s holy name should anyone vote for David Barron, vote for his confirmation for life to the federal bench without first knowing exactly what was in the “you can go ahead and kill Anwar al-Awlaki” memo that Barron is believed to have authored. Senator Paul is saying: Look, I’m not saying the guy can’t be on the bench. I’m just saying that if he’s going to get a position for life, then the American public and the U.S. Senate ought to have his legal opinions regarding an unprecedented abuse of power and authority that has been used by President Obama to use this thing that he calls a kill list. Here’s what Paul writes, in part:
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 17 years of mike church.com! – Mike
HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY
I believe that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate. I can’t imagine supporting someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
But President Obama is seeking to do just that. He has nominated David J. Barron, a Harvard law professor and a former acting assistant attorney general, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
While he was an official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barron wrote at least two legal memos justifying the execution without a trial of an American citizen abroad. Now Mr. Obama is refusing to share that legal argument with the American people.
On April 30, I wrote to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, urging him to delay this nomination, pending a court-ordered disclosure of the first memo I knew about. Since that letter, I have learned more. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to all senators on May 6, noting that in the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, “there are at least eleven OLC opinions on the targeted killing or drone program.” It has not been established whether Mr. Barron wrote all those memos, but we do know that his controversial classified opinions provided the president with a legal argument and justification to target an American citizen for execution without a trial by jury or due process.
I believe that all senators should have access to all of these opinions. Furthermore, the American people deserve to see redacted versions of these memos so that they can understand the Obama administration’s legal justification for this extraordinary exercise of executive power. The White House may invoke national security against disclosure, but legal arguments that affect the rights of every American should not have the privilege of secrecy.
Mike: In other words, Senator Paul is saying: Don’t even try to go with that national security BS. [mocking] “We can’t show you this because of national security.” Yes, you can. You take the sensitive parts, you get a Sharpie out, you block them out so no one can read them, and then you distribute them to the public.
I agree with the A.C.L.U. that “no senator can meaningfully carry out his or her constitutional obligation to provide ‘advice and consent’ on this nomination to a lifetime position as a federal appellate judge without being able to read Mr. Barron’s most important and consequential legal writing.”
No one argues that Americans who commit treason shouldn’t be punished. The maximum penalty for treason is death. But the Constitution specifies the process necessary to convict.
Mike: That’s right. Article III, Section 3 specifies you have to have two witnesses that are willing to, under oath or affirmation, swear that they saw whoever it is that’s been accused of this to make or levy war against them, meaning against the several states. The Constitution and the framers of the Constitution did foresee a day when there would need to be treason trials and where there would need to be a definition of treason and what you could do about it. They wrote it in there. It’s one of the few parts of Article III, which is the judicial article, which is actually express and explained well so that even the GEICO caveman could understand it.
End Mike Church Show Transcript