Marco Rubio Claps Back Hard on Rand Paul’s Remark on Venezuela’s Maduro [WATCH]

Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio engaged in a pointed exchange over the constitutionality of U.S. actions involving foreign governments and the removal of political figures, focusing on whether such actions violate constitutional principles and risk long-term consequences.

Paul argued that actions taken against elected officials — even when their legitimacy is disputed — violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and create dangerous precedents.

He said the use of force or coercion to remove leaders undermines checks and balances and opens the door to chaos.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

“Let’s call it what it is, and let’s vote on these things,” Paul said.

“But I think we’re in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capitol, blockading a country and removing elected officials. And we certainly wouldn’t tolerate it, nor would I if someone did it to us.”

Rubio rejected the premise that an elected official had been removed, arguing instead that the individual in question was not legitimately elected and faced criminal charges under U.S. law.

“We didn’t remove an elected official,” Rubio said.

“We removed someone who was not elected, and it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United States and their system…”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Paul responded by acknowledging that disputes over legitimacy are common in both foreign and domestic politics, but warned that relying on such claims as justification for removal actions erodes constitutional safeguards.

“Our laws, indicted under our laws,” Paul said.

“Look, Bolsonaro says that da Silva is not really the president of Brazil. Our president said Biden wasn’t really the president. Hillary Clinton said in 2016 Trump wasn’t the president.”

Paul said that while disputed elections may be flawed, using that determination as justification for intervention sets a precedent that can be misused.

“So you have these arguments, and I agree with you, it probably was, and most likely was, Most assuredly was a bad election. He wasn’t really elected,” Paul continued.

“But at the same time, if that’s our predicate, and you have to come to us because it’s a drug bust, we’re just removing somebody, you can see where it leads to and it leads to chaos.”

Paul said the Constitution exists specifically to prevent unchecked executive action, arguing that the erosion of those principles has occurred over decades.

“And that’s why we have rules like the Constitution, so we don’t get so far out there that presidents can do whatever they want,” he said.

“It is this check and balance, and I would argue for 70 years, we’ve been going the wrong way. It isn’t just this president, but it’s a debate that I think is worth having.”

WATCH: