Posted on 03/11/2003 2:10:43 PM PST by A2J
If Lincoln Was Correct... Then MUST the U.S. Abide By United Nations’ Demands?
Recently, while listening to a conservative radio talk show, the host mentioned that someone (I failed to get the name) had either written a book or made a statement to the effect that the United States was obliged to follow all of the mandates of the United Nations, primarily because the U.S. entered into a pact or contract with member nations to do so. This contention intrigued me as to the parallels it has regarding whether Lincoln was indeed right when he claimed that the South illegally seceded from the Union, thus igniting his attempt to restore the Union.
Indeed, there are many here on FR that contend that the sovereignty of the Southern states, as well as all states, became subservient to the conditions of the Constitution upon their ratification of it. If true, if the Southern states abdicated, or at least greatly restricted, their sovereignty upon entry into the Union, then does it not portend that the United States has also abdicated or greatly restricted its sovereignty upon its entry into the United Nations, NATO and other pacts that demand compliance with its resolutions? For example, if the UN would approve of a resolution that mandated that the U.S. withdraw from specific areas of the world, isn’t the U.S. required to do so because of its membership in the UN?
Although I am an avid, pro-Southern opponent of Lincoln and his policies, I would appreciate any comments regarding whether the U.S. is obligated by the mandates of the UN and/or any other organization of which it is a member nation. I would also like to hear the reasoning behind the answers whether they are to the affirmative or negative to the question. In addition, please consider the question as to whether the U.S. has the right to withdraw from said organizations and why?
Let us debate!
And this is significant because...?
Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.
Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. The Constitution references the Union as an existing entity. If I recall correctly Madison joined Hamilton in writing Federalist 18. 19 and 20 under the title "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union."
The “Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution” states:
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.
This letter notes the necessity of a different organization of the government of the Union and was sent to the representatives of the States that composed the Union. (The Federal Government is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States.) There is no indication that the Union was intended to end, just a change in the governing mechanism for it.
Looks to me like it flows.
Note that I have not maintained that a state has no right to secede. What I maintain is that the other states may have a right to object to that secession. Some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel." In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat. Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).
Regarding the Louisiana Territory, if one of the States formed from that Territory decided to secede, and the remainder of the States agreed to the Secession, should those remaining States demand that the State vacate the land in question, or pay for it? After all, the United States paid $15 million in good American dollars for that land and there is no reason to allow somebody to abscond with it without payment, like they had conquered it in war or something.
Or maybe not. Do you have an opinion on the Constitutional basis for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? Maybe none of them are legally part of the United States anyway.
The 10th Amendment says...
What the Ninth and Tenth Ammendments say is:
ARTICLE (IX.)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
ARTICLE (X.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
So, if the elected officials of the Federal Government represent the People and the States (the House of Representatives for the People, the Senate for the States (at least usta be), and the President for both), and the People have a right as noted in the 9th, and the power as noted in the 10th, and the States have the power, as noted in the 10th, can they not have their representatives do most anything on which they can agree among themselves? At least as long as it doesn't violate a right? Was not the Federal Government acting in accordance with the agreement of the People of the Northern States who at least thought they had the right and power to hold the Southern States in the Union? Would that not explain Social Security, and HUD and the EPA and a host of things "we" don't like?
Please argue against this. Considering the way people have tended to exercise their rights and powers for the last little while, it kind of scares me.
I suppose it is arguable, but seeing as the Articles of Confederate use the term both times in reference to those same articles, a more plausible explanation suggest that the term applied only as far as the articles themselves remained intact. The first is in the document's reference to itself as "articles of confederation and perpetual union," and the second states that the union "shall be perpetual" under what it describes as the "articles of this confederation." Thus each description of the union in that document comes as an attribute to the articles themselves. It seems to follow that, if those same articles cease to be the governing mechanism and are replaced by something else, the attributes they give to themself also share in the fate of the articles.
The Constitution references the Union as an existing entity.
That it does, but a common mistake of many is to take a simple reference to "the Union" or a statement praising the benefits of "the Union" as if it were an endorsement for perpetual and inescapable membership in that same union. The Constitution makes no statement asserting the perpetual nature of "the Union," though it does use the term union. It would be fallacy though to conclude that the former is true by virtue of the latter's presence alone.
If I recall correctly Madison joined Hamilton in writing Federalist 18. 19 and 20 under the title "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union."
Even so, simple praise of the union or a call to preserve it intact is not the same as a mandate perpetually binding its membership to that same union. It is a similar fallacy to identify simple advocacy of the union itself then conclude, based upon it alone, that the union's nature is inseparable.
This letter notes the necessity of a different organization of the government of the Union and was sent to the representatives of the States that composed the Union.
That it does, but again, a simple reference to the concept of the union, the functions of that union, or the benefits of that union does not constitute an assertion of that union's permanency. It is fallacy to insert that final step where there is none.
Note that I have not maintained that a state has no right to secede. What I maintain is that the other states may have a right to object to that secession.
The right to assert an objection is itself an obvious right of the other states. The issue is the degree in which they may assert this objection - specifically, does it mean they may simply urge their colleagues against secession, may they require that qualifications be met in order to secede, may they require their own full consent for secession to occur, or may they exert coercive force against a seceding state to prevent it from exercising an act of secession against their consent? Alexis de Tocqueville addressed this issue by noting that, ultimately, little could be legitimately done to stop secession. An act of coercion itself against a seceding state by an objecting state would itself be a violation of the Constitution's founding principle, thus making it the greater illegitimacy. As Tocqueville put it:
"If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states."
Regarding the Louisiana Territory, if one of the States formed from that Territory decided to secede, and the remainder of the States agreed to the Secession, should those remaining States demand that the State vacate the land in question, or pay for it? After all, the United States paid $15 million in good American dollars for that land and there is no reason to allow somebody to abscond with it without payment, like they had conquered it in war or something.
In such a case, the question becomes one of a right to make such a claim. Upon the settlement of those lands, ownership of the inhabited properties will generally belong to those who inhabit them or use them to whatever purpose is theirs. Accordingly, to ask that they vacate that land or pay another state that has no singular or direct claim of ownership to it for that land's use is akin to robbery. In theory, this issue could extend as well to federal properties within a seceding state. Suppose that Louisiana, for example, desires to secede. It is true that the people of Louisiana havte paid taxes to the federal government just like those of Massachusetts or any other state, and those taxes are presumably used to build things - let's say forts - in both Louisiana and Massachusetts. If Louisiana decides to leave the union, should Massachusetts have any more claim to a fort within the boundaries of Louisiana than Louisiana does? Just the same, should Louisiana have any more claim to a fort within the boundaries of Massachusetts? If Louisiana were to secede it would no doubt be asserted by some in Massachusetts that they were "stealing" a fort paid for by Massachusetts tax dollars, but such a claim would be disingenuous as Louisiana tax dollars also paid for that same fort and for other forts outside of Louisiana. One could, I suppose, attempt to determine values and ownership based on formulas of federal tax contributions by state, but doing so would be a logistical, mathematical, and political nightmare. Instead it seems that the most prudent method of determination is geographical.
Do you have an opinion on the Constitutional basis for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? Maybe none of them are legally part of the United States anyway.
Very possible. It would probably come down to whether or not the territory's de facto acceptance and admission into the United States supersedes the constitutionally sketchy ground on which it was obtained.
I'd be glad too except I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My position has been that the southern acts of secession were illegal. Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress. That is how the Constitution requires new states be added, that's how the Constitution requires any change in the status of a state be authorized, so that should be the minimum requirement for leaving. Add to the the fact that the Constitution also forbids a number of unilateral actions by states where the interest of other states may be impacted. So it would seem that the 10th Amendment would argue against the southern actions not in favor of them.
I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.
I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.
Personally, neither do I. But as a matter of reality, others do and they may be willing to take actions asserting that position. Simply pretending that they are not there will not make them go away, which returns us to my initial question.
Good, you agree that Kofi's opinion is insignificant.
But as a matter of reality, others do and they may be willing to take actions asserting that position. Simply pretending that they are not there will not make them go away, which returns us to my initial question.
So now you're back to saying Kofi's opinion is significant. I don't care if those that agree with him will go away or not. What are they going to do? Kofi may think the UN Charter is the supreme law of our land. Most Americans don't. Therefore his opinion is insignificant. Now if the UN was prepared to invade the United States to throw away our Constitution and establish the UN Charter as the supreme law of our land, then Kofi's opinion would be significant. But right now, without the US, Kofi's opinion is insignificant, because Kofi has no military power without the US.
No. I agree that Kofi's opinion is of little credibility per se in m own view. That does not preclude it from being an opinion that others pay attention to or act upon. Surely even you can recognize that simple distinction.
Hmm. Ok.
First off we are seem to be essentially in agreement on secession. I think a seceding state needs to get the agreement of the other states, unless the seceding state's complaints rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence.
But I partly went off on a side track.
In post 19 Billbears said in response to your post 17: "It says it in the 10th Amendment. You know that sticky Amendment that states powers not explicitly enumerated in the aforesaid document belong to the states?"
What the Tenth Ammendments say is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by theAnd according to the Ninth::
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall notHold those thoughts for awhile.
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We have a Constitutional Republic in which we the people elect some of our number to represent us in Congress and the Presidencey. (Usta be Senators were appointed by the States, and they represented the States directly and the people within those States indirectly, but that changed.)
Hold that thought for a while too.
Frequently, the question is asked, "by what Constitutional authority is the United States Government doing "something" (take your pick of "something") when the Constitution limits the United States Government, has not delegated the power for that "something" to the United States, and has reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, the powers not delegated to the United States?
Now let me try and bring the thoughts together:
If the people have a riight to do something in accordance with the Ninth Ammendment, and they have the power to do that something in accordance with the Tenth Ammendment, can they not have their representatives in Congress and the Presidency do that "something" on their behalf, even if it is not specifically stated elsewhere in the Constitution?
Are they not reserved the right under the Ninth Ammendment and the power under the Tenth Ammendment to have their representatives do that "something" on their behalf?
Can they not have their representatives do most anything on which they can agree among themselves? At least as long as it doesn't violate a right?
Was not the United States Government acting in accordance with the agreement of the People of the Northern States who at least thought they had the right and power to hold the Southern States in the Union? That seems consistent with your statement: "Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress." Such a vote by the representatives of the States and the People would have represented the agreement of the States and the People, or at least would have been presumed to do so until the next election or round of Senatorial appointments.
But to carry it further, is not the above rationale grounds for the United States Government doing many of the things it does that give rise to the question: "By what Constitutional authority is the United States Government doing that?" Is not the answer to this question that the people have the right and power to do "that" and they have the right and power to have their representatives do "that" on their behalf? And if the representatives did "that," is it not to be assumed that they had the agreement of the people, at least until the next election proves otherwise?
Would that not explain Social Security, and HUD and the EPA and a host of "thats" some of us don't like?
My questions above are rhetorical, but the request for a counter arguement is not. If the rationale above is solid, we need to take a different tack than saying "It ain't Constitutional," be a lot more careful about who gets elected (we need to do that anyway) and be extra careful of the rights of the social and political minorities of which we may become members,
And if it is solid, we need to use the rationale to our advantage, if we can agree on what that is.
I'm going to lay this out for you since your brain has a severe short attention span:
[You:]One of them named Kofi Annan recently said that the UN Charter prevented the US from going to war in Iraq, indicating this very same belief.
[Me:] And this is significant because...?
[You:]Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.
[Me:]I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.
[You:]Personally, neither do I.
[Me:]Good, you agree that Kofi's opinion is insignificant.
[You:]No.
No wonder you neo-Confederates are so screwed up, you don't know whether you're coming or going. LOL
So you believe that Kofi's opinion is significant (I'm glad we finally got that settled). Here's where you and I disagree. You think that Kofi's opinion is significant because you think that he will influence the people of this country to follow the UN charter as the supreme law of the land instead of our Constitution. I believe that Kofi's opinion is insignificant because I don't believe that the people he influences will have enough political power to put the UN Charter over our Constitution. I also don't believe that Kofi has the military power to invade the United States to install the UN Charter and throw away the Constitution. I don't know how much more plainly I can put it.
Maybe someday a UN Secretary General will have the military strength to enforce his or her opinion to the point of overruling our Constitution here, but that non-US military strength doesn't exist right now.
Nevertheless, try reading what you posted previously. You stated:
"I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant," to which any rational person would take as the expression of a personal belief that Kofi Annan's opinion lacks the significance needed to influence ones own. Insofar as my personal beliefs go as well, I agreed with you, as is signified in my response "Personally, neither do I." I then noted that others give significance to Annan's opinion, believe it to have merit and sway on their own opinions, and may even be willing to act in his favor. That is a simple fact of reality and cannot be ignored on the grounds that you or I don't like it.
Evidently you have yet to grasp this last part as you are still debating with yourself over an erronious semantical construct of trivial proportions. And you wonder why some here question your sanity...
It is not a matter of that he will do so, but that he will likely try to do so as will others who are supportive of his view. I do not know the degree of success he will achieve in the immediate present and, as things currently stand, I believe and hope it will be low. That does not mean, however, that his opinion may simply be ignored, forgotten, or dismissed as if it will simply go away. And that is why we must prepare for it and guard against it now.
I merely said that his opinion is insignificant. The state of insignificance has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with his opinion. His opinion is insignificant because at the moment, the UN is merely an anti-US, anti-America debating society with little military power outside of US help.
Nevertheless, try reading what you posted previously. You stated: "I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant," to which any rational person would take as the expression of a personal belief that Kofi Annan's opinion lacks the significance needed to influence ones own. Insofar as my personal beliefs go as well, I agreed with you, as is signified in my response "Personally, neither do I." I then noted that others give significance to Annan's opinion, believe it to have merit and sway on their own opinions, and may even be willing to act in his favor. That is a simple fact of reality and cannot be ignored on the grounds that you or I don't like it.
So since you believe that Kofi's opinion is significant, for whatever reason, you shouldn't have said his opinion is insignificant. I believe his opinion is insignificant because I don't believe his opinion makes a difference here to enough people. You do, and that's where we disagree.
Evidently you have yet to grasp this last part as you are still debating with yourself over an erronious semantical construct of trivial proportions. And you wonder why some here question your sanity...
No, you're confusing agreement with significance. I'm sure there are a lot of foreigners that I would agree with, but that wouldn't make their opinions any more significant.
And the only people that question my sanity are those that think slavery abolitionists are crazy.
I'll say it again. I do not care whether he and his type go away or not. They will never go away anyway, so any wish that those who agree with him to go away is a pipe dream. He and those who follow his opinion are insignificant. That may not always be the case in the future, but at the moment, Kofi Annon is insignificant. Now if a globaly popular person such as Bill Clinton becomes Secretary General and allows the other countries of the world to build up their militaries to invade the US to establish global rules and basically throw away our Constitution, then the opinion of the Secretary General will be significant. Or if we get a liberal president whose philisophy is to be a puppet to the Secretary General, then the Secretary General's opinion will be significant. Until then, his opinion is insignificant as it relates to our Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.