Skip to main content

Modern Politics vs. the Constitution: A Struggle for Relevance

Chairman Henry Hyde states that the Constitution is “Inappropriate and anachronistic.”

"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events (Did I miss an amendment?) by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to modern society (Like the Constitution?). Why declare war if you don't have to? (Good point) 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 a 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.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grassroots Revolt Against GOP Elitism

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

The Heavy Toll of Reclaiming Freedom

By Matthew Hayward The struggle for freedom has been a recurring act in the grand theater of human history. Yet, there is a philosophical argument that once freedoms are lost, they are irretrievably gone. This perspective, while disheartening, merits exploration. It's a chilling echo of the words of the trailblazing libertarian Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." The first act in this tragic play is the rise of technology. As we advance technologically, the tools of distraction become more potent. The Roman Coliseum has been replaced by the smartphone, a device that can pacify and distract with unprecedented efficiency. This technological pacification, while seemingly benign, has a sinister side. It diverts attention from the erosion of freedoms, making it easier for those in power to chip away at our liberties unnoticed. Consider the pervasive surveillance facilitated by our ...

The Quiet Surrender of Liberty

 By Matthew Hayward The slow poison of complacency is the death of the fighting spirit. History is filled with examples of once-free people who gradually surrendered their liberty, not in a single stroke but through a series of quiet concessions. Tyranny often doesn’t arrive with the sound of thunder; it creeps in like a thief in the night, taking advantage of human complacency. The most maddening aspect of this process is not the power-hungry forces behind it, it is the passive, apathetic acceptance by the very people it seeks to control. Complacency is the death knell of liberty. It dulls the senses, erodes vigilance, and normalizes oppression over time. What once sparked outrage and resistance becomes routine, accepted as the new normal. The body scanners at TSA checkpoints, the Patriot Act, the ever-expanding surveillance state, each started with public protests and fiery debates. Now, these violations of privacy and freedom are woven into the fabric of everyday life. Why do pe...