When Ron Paul tried to force Congress to obey the Constitution and declare war against Iraq (a war he opposes), Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il) stated that declaring war is "anachronistic, it isn't done anymore..." It was a jaw-dropping admission...but there was more.

Hyde went on to say that the Constitution has been "overtaken by events, by time" and is "no longer relevant to a modern society." This from a man regarded as a constitutional scholar...well, Henry, if that is how you feel, you have no business in Congress. You swore to defend the Constitution and if it is no longer relevant, neither are you. To make matters worse, what you said was covered up. And politicians wonder why we despise most of them!

--Henrietta

http://www.centrexnews.com/columnist...2002/1213.html

BUSH AND CONGRESS FLAUNT THEIR POWER

Here’s another telling quote from Bob Woodward’s Bush At War taken from his 2-1/2 hour interview with the president. The subject was whether or not Bush ever had an obligation to explain his thinking relative to plans for a possible attack on Iraq: "Of course not," Bush said. "I'm the commander; see, I don't need to explain – I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, [but] I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

I don’t think any further commentary is necessary on the danger inherent in the President’s attitude. Congress can be just as bad. Here a recent report by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex, of a confrontation between himself and other members of Congress on the Iraqi war resolution, and the subsequent cover-up by C-Span, which usually documents Congressional hearings for the record:

"The proposed resolution on the use of force mentioned the United Nations 25 times. That was considered safe. Not once did it mention the Constitution. I do not look to the UN to find the authority for this sovereign nation to defend herself. I look to the US Constitution. Article I, section 6, gives Congress (and only Congress) the authority to declare war. The ‘war power’ may not, and should not, be transferred from the ‘people's house’ to the president - the very transfer the White House's resolution attempted to achieve. Under US law, the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to execute a congressionally declared war.

"It was almost noon on October 3, the second day of the hearings, when my turn came. Under the harsh glare of television lights, I offered a substitute amendment, that is, new language to entirely replace what was currently in the resolution to use force. ‘Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a clear-cut declaration of war.’ [Rep. Paul is opposed to the war in Iraq but was attempting to make Congress take responsibility for their warmongering through an open declaration of war.]

"It was after that when the Chair [Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Il] stated that declaring war is ‘anachronistic, it isn't done anymore...’ It was a jaw-dropping admission...but there was more. The Chair went on to say that the Constitution has been ‘overtaken by events, by time’ and is ‘no longer relevant to a modern society.’ The Ranking Minority Member [Tom Lantos, D-Ca] called the declaration of war ‘frivolous and mischievous.’

FROM RON PAUL'S NEWSLETTER:

The Constitution Is No Longer Relevant

Below is a portion of a newsletter received from Ron Paul, House Representative from Texas. (This man is a pearl who is wallowing around in the slop with the swine.) It's an amazing story and is so indicative of the state of this nation at this time in history!

Mr. Paul:

"When the Constitution is called "irrelevant" during a televised hearing with 'gavel-to-gavel' coverage on C-SPAN, and the proceedings are also being recorded by the committee itself, yet neither the live broadcast nor the separate video record contain this statement due to "technical difficulties" - you can see why reasonable people believe in conspiracies.

Just remember, it is the system that is so diabolical; good men and women too easily get caught up in it. That is why the Founders, in their inspired wisdom, put constitutional restraints no only on the central government, but also on our elected leaders - who can become intoxicated with their own power, as history is teaching us again.

We present a greater danger than ever to those who put politics above principle. I feel the brunt of this resentment first hand in the Halls of Congress. They are clever and increasingly nasty in expanding their unconstitutional - and therefore illegal - powers. But that is the way puffed-up establishment types typically respond when they see themselves being replaced by upstarts they can't control.

And while the "upstarts" may not yet be storming the castle, a few are already in the House of Representatives. Most alarming to those who manipulate the system for the benefit of the special interest, are the "upstarts" who are coming to Washington like a breath of fresh air with the Freshman Class of 108th Congress.

If my count is right, we will welcome five - and maybe more - new Members into the Liberty Caucus in 2003. That should be reason enough for you to cheer! Because in politics, numbers count. And ours are growing.

As numbers go up, so does political courage.

I'm going to tell you the full story behind the"no-longer-relevant-Constitution: statement that is so offensive. The proof of what happened is in the official transcript of the hearing where certain statements could not get "lost" due to "technical difficulties."

The offensive comment is one of an increasing number of open assaults on the rule of law by those with the kind of ambition and agenda the Constitution was written to restrain. In one way, I'm glad it is out in the open.

The televised hearings began on October 2nd. The subject was the resolution on the use of military force in Iraq.

After a ten-day campaign to bring public opinion to bear the chairman of the International Relations Committee (IR) relented and agreed to have a hearing on the controversial resolution the White House wanted Congress to approve.

In committee, I was determined to call a spade a spade. This "resolution to use military force" is a decision on whether or not to go to war. Of course everyone already knew that, but they just didn't want to be on record voting for an unpopular war. Ducking the responsibility with a resolution allowing the president to use force was politically appealing.

There is always support for a popular war. But Members lack political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it is - a war - with all the ugly images and consequences war invokes.

After all, the election was right around the corner...

The proposed resolution on the use of force mentioned the United Nations 25 times. That was considered safe. Not once did it mention the Constitution. I do not look to the UN to find the authority for this sovereign nation to defend herself. I look to the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 6, gives Congress (and only Congress) the authority to declare war.

The "war power" may not, and should not, be transferred from the "people's house" to the president - the very transfer the White House's resolution attempted to achieve. Under U.S. law, the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to execute a congressionally declared war.

It was almost noon on October 3, the second day of the hearings, when my turn came. Under the harsh glare of television lights, I offered a substitute amendment, that is, new language to entirely replace what was currently in the resolution to use force.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a clear-cut declaration of war."

In the hush that fell over the room, I added that I was depending on the Chair to "make sure" my amendment "doesn't pass." Both the Chairman and the Ranking Member assured me they would do their best to defeat it.

I reminded the committee of the words of James Madison, who in 1798 said, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in legislature."

It was after that when the Chair stated that declaring war is "anachronistic, it isn't done anymore..." It was a jaw-dropping admission...but there was more.

The Chair went on to say that the Constitution has been "overtaken by events, by time" and is "no longer relevant to a modern society."

The Ranking Minority Member called the declaration of war "frivolous and mischievous."

At least it was out in the open. Now surely the display of such disdain for their oath to "support and defend the Constitution" would light up Capitol Hill switchboards with angry callers!

1. Little did I know that no one watching the hearings over C-SPAN - not a single person of what statistically is an audience of several million Americans - even heard those inflammatory comments.

2. When my staff called C-SPAN to get a copy of the video record to document these outrageous statements, we were told "technical difficulties" prevented that portion of the proceedings from being recorded.

3. ...and that same portion of the proceedings was also the only part missing on the internal record the House makes of such official hearings.

It was a though it never happened.

The Constitution is "irrelevant" in Washington in 2002?

Not to this congressman and many millions of Americans!

Much has changed since I first set foot in official Washington as a Freshman in the mid-70s. It was alarming enough back then, just to be "inside the belly of the beast" and discover how truly uninformed and "mis"-educated our elected leaders were.

Mr. Paul goes on to explain that that was the reason he started his Freedom Foundation.

"At least it was out in the open. Now surely the display of such disdain for their oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ would light up Capitol Hill switchboards with angry callers! Little did I know that no one was watching the hearings over C-SPAN – not a single person of what statistically is an audience of several million Americans – even heard those inflammatory comments. When my staff called C-SPAN to get a copy of the video record to document these outrageous statements, we were told ‘technical difficulties’ prevented that portion of the proceedings from being recorded, and that same portion of the proceedings was also the only part missing on the internal record the House makes of such official hearings." [End of Rep. Paul’s quote.]

Obviously, the record was purged without all the participants’ knowledge or permission, which is a violation of open meeting laws. Rep. Hyde could have been removed from Congress based upon his direct violation of his oath of office and his order that the record be purged. When officials collude with others to cover up for improper or illegal acts, it is a conspiracy – which is clearly not a rare occurrence in Washington

Yeah, I had the chance to read that on my own recently. Frightening indeed.

oh yeah

but what frightens me even more is the lack of interest of the americans

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if many agree with the viewpoint taken by the Chairman.

I have started to care less about these people however. I think of Benjamin Franklin's quote:

"They that would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary saftey, deserve neither liberty nor' saftey."

They will get what they want and deserve. As for me, I'm joining the militia.

Ron Paul is right,

But its not just the Repubs, its the Dems as well.

On the issues that really matter, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

We're losing the balance we used to have on the political spectrum...we're on thin ice here...