The perspective of a few days

While I still agree with those who frame Rand Paul's filibuster as genuinely pivotal, it is well and proper that the tempering views of others whose concern for national security I deeply respect get an airing.

Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard points out that it should give all of us pause that Code Pink applauded what Senator Paul did.   Methinks he focuses so much on the official reason for Paul's move, and its ramifications for cross-ideology interest, that he loses sight of its sheer energy.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO quotes Hamilton's Federalist 23 in order to reinforce his point that no one in any age can know the full scope of possible threats to our exceptional and precious democratic republic.

He then, in his own words, fleshes this out. Right now, we are engaged in a protracted conflict with jihadism, and seem to have the resources we need to fight it effectively.  But the nature of the struggle could morph, or be joined by other struggles, and then we would really need to parse the Constitution for just what it does - or doesn't specify in the way of executive power:

In the ongoing conflict, the enemy does not have fortifications inside our territory that would enable its operatives to keep the police at bay. As long as we catch them in time, our enemies can be safely taken into custody. And if we catch them on the precipice of deadly action, ordinary law-enforcement principles allow for the use of lethal force to stop them.

But that may not always be the case. We could have enemies with much greater capabilities, enemies including traitorous Americans. The fact that we do not appear to need lethal military force in the homeland in this conflict does not mean we will never need it.

So leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution does not tell us what should or must be done in a particular situation. It tells us the outer limits of what is legitimate in all threat situations. To shackle our power to meet a threat, as Hamilton explained, is to put us in peril.

The goal, according to Senator Paul, is to shackle the president. That is done by trimming his sails in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), not by trimming his constitutional power.

There's no denying that this is a singularly noteworthy moment.  The filibuster's energizing effect beyond the scope of its ostensible purpose must be taken into account, by anyone interested in seeing the real present dynamic at work  in the political landscape.

That said, at some point Senator Rand Paul is going to be asked how much daylight there is between his own worldview and that of his Rockwellian father, and he'd better have an answer that satisfies the broad spectrum of conservatives.