'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."

--Chairman Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in session of House of Representatives, during hearing on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ", 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, elected government official who placed his left hand on the Bible, raised his right hand, and swore before almighty God his absolute allegiance to the Constitution of the United States -- all of 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 ifs ands or buts.

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 federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the Congress (the Legislative Branch) to give away to the president (the Executive Branch) its power to declare war. 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 reexamine what Founding Father James Madison had to say on this very subject when the Third Congress proposed to surrender Declaration of War powers to the executive Branch way back when:

The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty by James Madison, August 1793

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination 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 the 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.

The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

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 commanding them.

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.

###

James 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?

Next, if any un-amended part of the Constitution is "no longer relevant", the entire Constitution is no longer relevant. If high-ranking Chairman and Congressman Henry Hyde used that revealing and specious argument to successfully 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 by what legally binding document is this federal government conducting itself by? 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.

I've been having an interesting and lively debate with a legal professional from 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 is, not me! I know what a Declaration of War is, and it is spelled out clearly in 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 to?"

If a resolution to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq is the same as a Declaration of War on Iraq, Why did Henry Hyde make 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 know; 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.

Carl F. Worden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------