I just heard Rand Paul explain his reasoning for voting for Hagel on Beck’s radio program. In a nutshell, Rand said he believes the Constitution says he is to advise the President, then consent to whoever the President nominates. So, literally, and without reduction, Rand said he would have voted YES had Obama nominated Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot to his cabinet.
Rand, if the founders meant for the Senate to approve whoever the President nominates, they wouldn’t have bothered to include the advice and consent clause to the Constitution. That was included to provide a check against the President doing exactly what he has been doing.
This is what I mean about the Liberaltarians being so in favor of “liberty” that they will destroy the structure that IS necessary to maintain a free and self-governing society. In this case, Rand Paul is reading the Constitution as a free license for the President to do whatever he wants with the Executive. Rand is simply wrong (and you can read the Federalist Papers and Madison’s notes on the Convention to confirm it for yourself).
[Note: as soon as Rand justified his reasoning to Beck, claiming it was "consistent," Rand immediately contradicted himself when Beck asked if this means he will be voting to affirm Brennen.]
Beck followed his interview with rand Paul with an explanation intended to defend Rand. Beck seems to believe that, since Rand reads the Constitution to mean the Senate MUST approve all nominees the President makes, Rand was just following principle when he voted for Hegel. Beck then said he disagreed, but he has to support Rand because “Rand must become President.” Well, if you are one of those who thinks I am a Glenn Beck sycophant, pay attention:
GLENN BECK IS WRONG!
If Beck is going to decry Obama because Obama doesn’t understand or support the Constitution, then it is hypocritical and contradictory to declare that Rand “Must become President” immediately after Rand illustrates that he does not understand the system of checks and balances in the Constitution. Now, before anyone tries to defend Rand’s view of the “advise and consent” clause, I would caution you to consider that Rand’s biggest justification was “I don’t want the other side doing this the next time a Republican President tries to nominate a Cabinet member.” So Rand not only demonstrated his lack of understanding for the checks and balances in the Constitution, he clearly indicated his primary concern is motivated more by politics than by principle.