Replies

FReepers generally take a dim view of the UN based on the facts that it is ineffective, anti-American, anti-Israeli, left-wing, etc.

Rather than complain about its policies (which, improbably, it might conceivably change to ones more to our liking), we should oppose the UN on the basis that it is constitutionally illegitimate. Two fatal flaws are that (1) it is not representative (e.g., Tuvalu (population 11 thousand) gets the same vote as China (population 1.3 billion)) and (2) it is not democratic (in that many countries are dictatorships of one form or another and their UN representatives are not accountable -- directly or indirectly -- to their people). An organization with these flaws can never be legitimate.

The UN was formed from the ashes of World War II in the hopes of preventing WWIII, and it is ill-adapted to today's world with its stateless insurgencies.

If we need any global organization, it would have to be based on legitimate constitutional principles, including representativeness and a power rooted in the free choices of its constituent members' citizens. For example, an organization of democratic countries with voting strength proportional to population might be appropriate.

However, the history of such organizations is not promising. Consider the European Union -- half-way between a nation and the global entity sketched above -- which seems to have morphed into an inefficient and ineffective left-wing bureaucracy. (Compare its proposed constitution with our own for an evening of chuckles and horse-laughs).

Bottom line: the UN is constitutionally illegitimate and should be replaced, if at all, by a legitimate, representative organization of democratic nations.

>>Bottom line: the UN is constitutionally illegitimate and should be replaced, if at all, by a legitimate, representative organization of democratic nations.<<

Years ago, don't you think this was brought up? Yeah, I'll bet it was but we signed on for the ride anyway, constitutionally illegitimate or not.

Now, the Constitution has as much authority as the Sears catalog does in our legislative halls. We kill babies before they're born because it's convenient for us to do it.
We start wars without Congress declaring so.

These Executive Orders issued when Congess is in session aren't what I would consider legal but the legislators don't seem to mind. Are we even allowed to mind?