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.
Henry Hyde: “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…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of adhering to existing laws during a debate.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
On May 11, 2006, I was absent for the following procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 137, on motion to adjourn, ``nay''; Rollcall No. 138, on motion to adjourn, ``nay.'' ____________________
I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion--a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman.
This is a killer amendment. If you vote for it, you vote to kill this entire initiative, because this imposes limits on India's nuclear weapons program, but India already possesses nuclear weapons and is extremely unlikely to give them up…
Members of this Committee know the story of how Congressman Henry Hyde changed his mind when the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was in play by virtue of the facts and the testimony that he saw.





