Ladies & gentlemen:
10/3/2002, Representative Ron Paul of Texas made a motion to declare
Iraq. Chairman Henry Hyde rejected the motion by declaring:
are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are
saying to the
President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
war is to strengthen
something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
situation, and it is
not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."
Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in session of House of Representatives,
on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
discussing Ron Paul's motion to declare war.
Before you read on, please
stop and re-read Chairman Hyde's statement
again, and carefully digest exactly
what he said. I'll wait.
Now, this is a high-ranking government elected official who placed his
left hand on the Bible, raised his right hand, and swore before almighty
his absolute allegiance to the Constitution of the United States --
it -- and apparently intended to violate that sacred oath even as
he was swearing
it! Think about that, and what it means.
If any part of our Constitution
is "no longer relevant" to this modern
society of ours, a constitutional
amendment must be passed making it no
longer relevant. Unless and until that
is done, every part of that
Constitution of ours is to be strictly adhered
to, no if's and's or but's.
Next, the Congress cannot give up its power
to declare war unless
accomplished by a constitutional amendment. Article
10 of the Bill of
Rights to our Constitution clearly states that the power
not given to the
federal government by the Constitution is prohibited to the
government. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the
Congress (the Legislative Branch) to give away its power to declare war to
the president. (the Executive Branch), yet Henry Hyde clearly states, "We
are saying to the President, use your judgment".
Please correct me
if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, there is no
constitutional power given
Congress to issue a "resolution" authorizing
the president to use
military force at his discretion, and if that power
is not specifically given
the Congress, then Article 10 forbids Congress
from exercising that power.
The Congress cannot take power which is not
given them by the Constitution,
nor do they have the authority to give
away a power assigned to the Congress
by the Constitution.
Let's re-examine what Founding Father James Madison
had to say on this
very subject when the Third Congress proposed to surrender
War powers to the executive Branch way back when :
Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty
Madison, August 1793
all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be
because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is
of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and
taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the
of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the
Executive is extended;
its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and
emoluments is multiplied;
and all the means of seducing the minds, are
added to those of subduing the
force, of the people. . . . [There is also
an] inequality of fortunes, and
the opportunities of fraud, growing out of
a state of war, and . . . degeneracy
of manners and of morals. . . . No
nation could preserve its freedom in the
midst of continual warfare. . . .
[It should be well understood] that the
powers proposed to be surrendered
[by the Third Congress] to the Executive
were those which the Constitution
has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature.
. . .
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature
power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies .
the power of creating offices. . . .
A delegation of such powers
[to the President] would have struck, not only
at the fabric of our Constitution,
but at the foundation of all well
organized and well checked governments.
separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it,
contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the
sake of its
The separation of the power of raising armies from the
power of commanding
them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for
the sake of
The separation of the power of creating
offices from that of filling them,
is an essential guard against the temptation
to create offices for the
sake of gratifying favorites or multiplying dependents.
Madison was the fourth president of the United States.
This is from Letters
and Other Writings of James Madison.
Are you with me so far?
if any un-amended part of the Constitution is "no longer relevant",
the entire Constitution is no longer relevant. If high-ranking Chairman
Congressman Henry Hyde used that revealing and specious argument to
defeat Representative Ron Paul's motion for constitutional
compliance in declaring
war on Iraq, then we now have irrefutable proof
that the government of the
United States, as defined by the Constitution
of the United States, has been
overthrown, and every one of those members
of Congress who voted down Representative
Paul's motion for a formal
declaration of war is a craven traitor to the people
of the United States.
There is something even more disturbing about this
discovery: If the
Constitution of the United States has been made irrelevant
by treating it
as a menu rather than the legally binding document it is, then
legally binding document is this federal government conducting itself
In the absence of a replacement, we are literally being run by a
government that is flying by the seat of its pants, and I have come to the
conclusion that is exactly what is going on right now.
If Article 1, Section
8 of the Constitution is irrelevant, and if Article
10 of the Bill of Rights
is irrelevant, shouldn't Article 16, the Income
Tax Amendment to the Constitution,
also be considered "irrelevant"? It
appears that the only parts
of the Constitution that remain "relevant" are
those the federal
government will enforce, and you can be certain the
federal government will
continue to enforce Article 16 to fullest extent
of the law and well beyond.
been having an interesting and lively debate with a legal
Southern California who insisted that a congressional
resolution to use military
force against Iraq was just another way of
declaring war, that there is no
difference, and that I should stop playing
games with semantics to show there
is a difference.
But wait, who really is playing games with semantics? Congress
me! I know what a Declaration of War is, and it is spelled out clearly
the Constitution by those three words. I again want to take you back to
the infamous words of Henry Hyde:
"Why declare war if you don't have
If a resolution to authorize the president to use military force
Iraq is the same as a Declaration of War on Iraq, Why did Henry Hyde
that comment? Hmm?? That comment clearly and obviously proves that Henry
Hyde knows that the two are not the same, and he is in the position to
otherwise, he wouldn't have opposed Ron Paul's motion.
They are not the
same, and a resolution has no constitutional backing,
which means that my
original contention that the war being prosecuted by
the United States military
against Iraq is clearly illegal and
unconstitutional. But what is even more
disturbing is the full realization
that the government occupying Washington
D.C. is in fact an illegal
government as well.