You are getting me in trouble here. I would work very hard for the gentleman's vote. Let me just say this to you: There is no question that a law on the books has to be taken into account by a President. He may think it is unconstitutional, but to just deliberately flout a law that is on the books and has not been declared unconstitutional would be very foolish. So I do not think you can read into the fact that they considered the existence of this law that it animated them to do anything. Common sense and the President's own military experience and service in Congress required him to consult, and he did.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of adhering to existing laws during a debate.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
I take the floor to remind my colleagues of two home truths that may have been forgotten in the 4 years and 4 months since September 11, 2001. The first of these is that we are a Nation at war. Decades of dealing with terror networks like…
I simply want to say, in response to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), that contempt is not animating our legislation, and I really question the wisdom of penetrating motives, which seems to be a habit with some people…
I think our politics has suffered. I hope not a mortal blow, but certainly a serious blow. The name calling, the negativity, the throwing of mud, the institution of the White House, the presidency, and Congress itself. People are looking…
I might note parenthetically that in the motion to recommit, it says ``to provide U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq in a timely manner with the equipment and other resources needed to do their job.'' I also take note that the supplemental 2 months…





