Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (332045)	12/21/2002 12:05:48 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"The Constitution Is No Longer Relevant"-- Rep. Henry Hyde ... from Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) newsletter: "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. " sierratimes.com