Making the case of Rand Paul versus Barack Obama

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," February 13, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Senator Rand Paul is suing President Obama. Senator Paul, join us. Nice to see you sir.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY: Glad to be with you Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, you filed suit or you've take him to court. What is the purpose of the suit?

PAUL: You know, the question is whether a single warrant can apply to millions of Americans. We think that this is a general warrant and the fourth amendment says a warrant has to have your name on it, has to be individualized to the person and the place. And we fought the revolution largely over this point that we were unhappy about British soldiers writing their own warrants and for them being non specific where they can go in anyone's house. Now it's your computer or your phone records, with the same principle. The warrant needs to have suspicion. The government needs to say to a judge, we think that you've committed a crime and we have probable cause that you committed a crime, present some evidence to the judge and the judge gives a warrant. Right now, we have a warrant, and this was revealed by Snowden. We have a warrant given to Verizon for all of their phone calls. And we really think that's not specific and we think it goes against the fourth amendment. We want to get all the way to the Supreme Court and in an open court, decide whether this is constitutional.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, I have the fourth amendment right in front of me and I will tell you that the any judge can be hard pressed to in any way invalidate the NSA search and seizure. However, the wording of the fourth amendment is quite plain that you need a warrant. That's what it says. And it particularly describes the place to be searched and the first things to be seized. So, the plain wording of the fourth amendment is very plain and if the Obama administration or anyone else likes it, we either should change the constitution or get a particularized warrant to comply with it but I don't think any judge will ever have the courage to go your way.

PAUL: You know, we'll see. And the thing is, is you make a good point. I'm not against the NSA getting warrants. I'm not against the police getting warrants. If there's a murder or rapist running around Washington, D.C., by all means, let's get a warrant, go in the house, capture them or get their records, same way with terrorists. But let's go and name them, and then let's say if we want to look at the phone calls they have been making, let's name those people. And I don't -- I'm not so concerned about how far out and how many hops you go out as I am that it be individualized and there be suspicion. My fear is that we've gone so much in the collecting everyone's records and spending billions of dollars and millions of hours doing this that we're letting down on the traditional police work that we need. The Tsarnaev boys, who were the Boston bombers, have traveled to Chechnya, were on websites, they were labeling themselves with their music -- terrorist music and they were communicating with people who were preaching forms of radical Jihad and violence. And so, they were connected but we weren't connecting the dots even though the Russians warned us about this about them. So, I think we get distracted too much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I think you can have investigations and follow the constitution simultaneously. I don't think if you go outside the constitution. But let me ask you this, you had lunch after filing with Attorney General Eric Holder. That must have been cozy?

PAUL: Well, you know, as an individual, I like Eric Holder. I think he's sincere. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but one issue I do agree with him on is that I think people should be allowed to have redemption. As a Christian, I think people deserve a second chance. If you've not committed a violent felony, if you were caught with drugs, possession or sale, you've served your time, I think we should try to get you back in society and I think you should get your right to vote back. In fact, I will testify in Frankfurt for giving nonviolent felons their right to vote back again after they have served their time because I think it's a good way to -- reincorporate people back into society.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did he have to say anything about the fact that you were suing the president or suing him at the lunch? Did he say anything at all, like hey, thanks, for the lawsuit.

PAUL: I met him in the big paneled conference room beneath the portrait of Bobby Kennedy. And he said I understand you've suing me and I said, well, it's nothing personal. And but we did laugh a little bit about that and it will be his justice department. It's not a laughing matter, we laughed about being there for lunch together. It's a serious matter, I'm sure he'll treat it seriously from his point of view and I will, too. And -- the big thing I hope is right now these questions are being decided in secret, in form something we call the FISA Court or a National Security Court, but they're not getting the light of day and there's not a lawyer on both sides. One of the big thing that I know Judge Napolitano write about this and talks about this is that you can't find truth unless you have an adversarial process. You need a lawyer on booth sides. The defendant needs a lawyer. FISA, there is no lawyer for the guy who thinks the Bill of Rights preserves our privacy, so this is a big deal. It needs to get into the Supreme Court. I hope it's my case and if it's not my -- my case, I hope a case gets into the light of day.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, thank you. I urge the viewers just for their education, always take a look at the constitution. I just read the fourth amendment for the millionth time and never can get enough of it. Thanks, senator.

PAUL: Thanks, Greta.