The power to tax and the power to wage war are the two most potent enumerated powers; most sought after by government; most potentially harmful to individual Liberty; most in need of citizens' scrutiny.

As further justification for the People to stop sending money to the federal government, this article reports on the treasonous behavior that occurred in the halls of Congress on October 2 and 3. 2002, regarding the unconstitutional commitment of this nation to war.

The government's disdain and disrespect for the Constitution came out into the open on October 3, 2002, in the House of Representatives, during the second day of a two-day hearing on the Iraq Resolution (H.J. Resolution 114), "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ."

Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.

However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them.  There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.  Why declare war if you don'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.."

The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), "That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion."

The Committee then went on to approve H.J. Resolution 114, which was eventually approved by Congress.

If anyone has lingering doubts about the corruption of the Legislative and Judicial branches and the devolution of our Constitutional system of check and balances into the instrumentalities of the powers that truly run our nation, the proof is now put before you.

The processes of limited government, defined by the Constitution are, indeed, no longer relevant and have been neutered to the extent that today only the shadow of a bona fide Constitutional government exists.

Our legislative leaders and federal judges feel so comfortable working outside the Constitution that they now no longer even hesitate to talk of such matters on the record. They make contemptible judicial decisions and strong-arm the workings of the legislative process to achieve their ends, knowing that the tentacles of power will protect them, their careers and their benefactors.

Indeed, the two most significant powers a People can grant its government are the power to tax and the power to commit to war. These are the most critical elements of government. As we sit today, our federal government is in gross violation of the strict limits the People have delineated around these crucial powers.

As many know, this Foundation has led the foremost public challenge put forth to date, to enforce the 1^st Amendment's guarantee of our individual right to petition for redress of grievances regarding these matters. We have petitioned repeatedly regarding hundreds of specific legal and Constitutional issues surrounding the income tax system of this nation and put forth a petition publicly exposing the fraudulent legislative process that may shortly deliver this nation into war.

On the question of moving the federal Judiciary to challenge the unconstitutional declaration of war, the Foundation presents for your review a summary of the lawsuit brought by Bob Schulz and several others in 1999 seeking redress, through the courts, for the unlawful application of the armed forces of the US in hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. Click here to read the Memorandum of Law, dated 7/7/99, written by Bob Schulz. Click here to read the Verfied Compliant, dated 5/28/99, against the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Any reasonable man would agree that every citizen has standing to sue if the cause of action is an alleged violation of the Constitution. In other words, the court's determination of the constitutional question affects each and every citizen. However, the court's have developed a "standing doctrine" as a way of avoiding certain questions. The standing doctrine says that for a plaintiff to have standing to bring an action he must show injury "different in kind and degree" from the injury suffered by everybody else. Otherwise, the court says, the plaintiff's question is a "political question" for Congress to decide.

The case against the use of force in Yugoslavia without a declaration of war was dismissed for lack of standing. In other words, according to the court, the plaintiffs had to take their complaint to Congress - the very people who violated the Constitution, and who obviously were not going to listen to the plaintiffs.

In other words, Congress gets to change the Constitution (but in a way not authorized by the Constitution).

Finally, to see how redress actually proceeds in the courts, please read the article by Stephan Archer of World Net Daily entitled "Balkans war suit thrown out. Judge dismisses lawsuit, says plaintiffs lack standing."

On the matter of petitioning the Legislature about unconstitutional abuse of the law making process and their oaths of office, the Foundation offers an insightful analysis contributed by Mike Bodine analyzing the two-day October 2002, House International Relations Committee hearing "authorizing" (unconstitutionally) the President to initiate war against Iraq.

Consider the full implications of the comment made by Chairman Henry Hyde: