What is the logical extension of a decision that it is constitutional to utilize a drone by our military to strike at the life of an American citizen here in the United States? And I would say, if the Senator would agree with me, most Americans would find it repulsive, unconstitutional, a terrible violation of public duty if a military officer on the streets of Wichita, KS, pulled a gun and shot an American citizen.

Really, is that not the logical extension of the idea that a drone strike from above results in the death of a U.S. citizen without due process? Is that any different than the ability to kill somebody in any other manner that I think most Americans would recognize today as prohibited without due process of law by our Constitution?

. . .

We are here at this point in time in the juncture of the Senate with the issue of whether to confirm a particular individual to a particular office, an administrative appointment. I would ask the Senator if he doesn't believe the issue of the due process rights of American citizens is of such a magnitude that the real issue that ought to be before the Senate is not the confirmation of an individual, but we ought to resolve the issue of whether the Senate believes it is constitutional for the due process rights of an American citizen to be taken by a drone strike here in the United States, and the opportunity now presents itself that it would be a reason not to grant cloture. Let me ask it as a question. Would it not be a reason to grant cloture on this nomination until we resolve this issue?