Now, today, after learning that Paul introduced HR 1146 (American Sovereignty Restoration Act) especially, when considering this legislation calls for the US to withdraw from the U. N., I have had an epiphany and (after having gotten in touch with the “feminine side,” which allows me to change my mind at will--absent any rhyme or reason-- a distinction, usually reserved for--and applied at will by--the “fairer sex”) I now, consider Paul, as “my hero.”
Back off, ladies! Please, no Flames, Rants, Hex’s, or need to pray for this errant, heathen’s/sexist’s soul. LOL
Merely, my attempt at a bit levity early this morning and to inject a little humor, in what is a very serious and troubling issue. Plain English: “Just, kidding!”
Two excellent articles which really expose the facts regarding the United Nations and the United States’ participation therein as well as the usurpation of our “rights” under “our” United States Constitution forced upon us by a succession of Presidents (beginning with the “god of liberals” FDR, continuing up through the “darling of the left,” Bill Clinton and even, including, the Globalist, Rockefeller- Republican, Bush, 41.
With the recent decision by a liberal, Clinton-appointed, activist Judge (Ricardo Urbina) last week, in which he granted a 10 days TRO sought by Paul Volker over the distribution of documents turned over to Congress by former investigator Robert Parton, and the discussions on this site regarding whether the UN (or Volker) had standing in order to seek such action in a US Court and whether this “wing-nut” Urbina, was within his authority (not that a Fed Judge is any longer constrained by a minor inconvenience or dictum as outlined in our Constitution as long as they justify their rulings based on whatever foundation they so desire—legal or otherwise) to issue said ruling, these two articles, especially, the well-reasoned and factually researched analysis by Herbert Titus, should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that the UN (thus its appointed puppet and apologist, bent on whitewashing the Oil for Food Program, Volker) has NO standing or legal “authority” to challenge the authority or power of the United States Congress.
The one posted herein “Showdown at the U.N. Corral,” outlines the problem and situation; the other one, Herbert W. Titus “American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146” an analysis by Herbert Titus of the Liberty Committee http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr1146analysis.htm (as well as a more detailed examination of the UN, by the same author) http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr1146analysis.htm#ii affords the reader information which--while may have been readily available in the past--has escaped careful scrutiny by not only myself, but I believe, the majority of Americans.
Moreover, its dissemination and publication, (not surprisingly, by pro-UN advocates within our Gov’t., as well as the MSM has been muted and withheld from the public) and this study, is truly enlightening and thought provoking.
Summary: Excerpts of the analysis by Herbert Titus
A long read, but well worth the effort. Maybe saved for later reading, but PLEASE, don’t forget. Very important for those who value and cherish freedom!!
”The Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or the American people.
”Even if the Charter of the United Nations were a properly-ratified treaty, it would still be constitutionally illegitimate and void because it transgresses the Constitution of the United States of America in three major respects:
1. It unconstitutionally delegates to the United Nations the U.S. Congress' legislative power to initiate war and the U.S. president's executive power to conduct war;
2. It unconstitutionally transfers to the United Nations General Assembly the United States House of Representatives' exclusive power to originate revenue-raising measures; and,
3. It unconstitutionally robs the 50 American states of powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
In a more in depth analysis http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr1146analysis.htm#ii Titus continues:
Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives in cooperation with the United Nations has been more theoretical than real.
Presidents from Truman to Clinton have again and again presented Congress with military faits accomplis, thereby forcing Congress’ hand to support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the nation’s servicemen and servicewomen in unnecessary danger.
Instead of seeking congressional approval of the use of United States armed forces in service of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United Nations Security Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the deployment of United States armed forces in that service.
This erosion of congressional power, and hence United States sovereignty, has not been accidental. The seeds were planted from the beginning, both in the text of the Charter of the United Nations and in the vision of its most ardent supporters.
With such expansive language as this, it is not surprising that, even before the charter was ratified, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt expressed hope that some day “the lion’s share” of “the direction of American foreign policy” would pass gradually to the United Nations Security Council.
The release in July 2000 of the United Nations Human Development Report 2000 provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nation's jurisdictional claims.
Boldly proclaiming that “[g]lobal integration is...eroding national borders,” the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals.
In a “special contribution” endorsing this call for the internationalization of domestic policy-making,
”At the dawn of the 21st century the United Nations has become more central to the lives of more people than ever.... Above all...we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual...shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. This idea is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.... The United Nations’ achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration [of Rights].... Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm...that must and will take precedence over concerns of state sovereignty. UN Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy.
Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation's very existence, the Charter of the United Nations of which - from the beginning - was designed to displace the national charter of the United States of America - the Declaration of Independence and her national covenant - the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American people have not, however, ever approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never “made under the Authority of the United States,” as required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.
By invoking the name of the “peoples of the United Nations,” then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000)
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document.
The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the United States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.
Even considering the Charter of the United Nations as a treaty does not save it. The Charter of the United Nations would still be constitutionally illegitimate and void, because it transgresses the Constitution of the United States of America in three major respects:
(1) It unconstitutionally delegates the legislative power of Congress to initiate war and the executive power of the president to conduct war to the United Nations, a foreign entity;
(2) (2) It unconstitutionally transfers the exclusive power to originate revenue-raising measures from the United States House of Representatives to the United Nations General Assembly; and,
(3) It unconstitutionally robs the states of powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations requires “[a]ll Members..., in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with s special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities...necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”
To make sure that the president did not act unilaterally to place United States armed forces under United Nations command “to maintain or restore international peace and security,” the United States Congress passed the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. That act provides that no United States armed forces may be employed in a United Nations peacekeeping operation without the specific approval of the terms of agreement by Congress. 22 U.S.C. Section 287(d)
At present, Congress has never entered into an Article 43 agreement; yet, presidents from Truman through Clinton have deployed U.S. troops in service to the United Nations
How can this be explained? It began with the Korean War when President Truman “committed American forces to war on U.S. authorization but without a Congressional declaration”:
A State Department memorandum claimed that as Commander in Chief the President had full control over U.S. forces and could employ them without Congressional approvalto `protect “the broad interests of American foreign policy.” Tuomala, “Just Cause: The Thread that Runs so True,” 13 Dick. J. Int’l. Law 1, 38 (1994)
So ingrained has this claim of presidential prerogative become that President George Bush remarked to the Texas State Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas on June 29, 1992, that he “‘didn’t have to get permission from some old goat in the United States Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.’” 28 “Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc.” 1119 (June 29, 1992)
Although President Bush had only contempt for the U.S. Congress in his decision to wage war on Iraq, he assiduously courted the United Nations Security Council for support – and for good reason. Not only did President Bush need the political support of the world community, but also he sought legitimacy for his actions under the Charter of the United Nations.
According to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, members are required to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”
According to Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, “the Security Council,” not individual states or collections of states, “determine[s] the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression” by any state and the United Nations Security Council, not any individual states or collections of states, alone “decide[s] what measures shall be taken,” including the use of force, “to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations allows for only one exception: national self-defense “if an armed attack” has occurred against a member, and even then, the member state must defer to the United Nations Security Council once it steps in with “measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” In short, the national interests of a member state must always be subordinate to the collective interests of the members, as determined by the United Nations Security Council.
There is, however, more at stake than just the potential legal and political fallout stemming from United States resistance to United Nations monetary importunities. By permitting the United Nations General Assembly to decide how much the United States owes, the Charter of the United Nations undermines a bedrock principle of the American republic - “no taxation without representation.”
In the beginning, America’s founders resisted the imposition of a tax upon the American people imposed by the English Parliament because Parliament was not composed of any representative elected by the people of the English colonies in the New World. Resting upon the Magna Carta, then over 560 years old, America declared her independence as a sovereign nation because King George III and the English Parliament insisted on taxing the American people without their consent.
Today, like the 18th century English Parliament, officials that are not elected by the American people form the United Nations General Assembly. Yet, like that English Parliament, the United Nations General Assembly insists that is has the right to impose upon the American people tax assessments to support policies adopted by that assembly.
It is time to return the power to tax the American people for support of the United Nations to the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate that, alone, are composed of the elected representatives of the American people. In light of Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations, there appears to be only one way to accomplish this objective: complete withdrawal from the United Nation by the United States of America.
V. The Charter of the United Nations Unconstitutionally Usurps Power Reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment
From the outset, the Charter of the United Nations has embraced goals and objectives that, if implemented, transfer powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The charter’s preamble, for example, does not limit the “ends” of the charter to the maintenance of international peace and security among the nations of the world, but extends the reach of the U.N. to the “employ[ment] [of] international machinery for the promotion of economic and social advancement of all peoples.”
To that end, the Charter of the United Nations contains an entire chapter (Chapter IX) of articles providing for the establishment of international agencies to promote worldwide economic, social, health, cultural, and educational policies. See Articles 55-60. Chapter X of the Charter of the United Nations additionally provides for the creation of the Economic and Social Council within the United Nations organization similarly to promote a worldwide agenda of economic, social, health, cultural and educational policies. See Articles 61-72.
In response, the United States government over the years has voluntarily cooperated in these international efforts, notwithstanding their adverse impact upon the exercise of traditional powers exercised by the state and local governments.
Congress, for example, has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to support the United Nations Environment Fund, has authorized United States membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and the World Health Organization without consideration of the constitutional limitations upon congressional powers in these subject matter areas. Such wholesale delegation of power to influence domestic health, welfare and safety policy cannot be justified under the treaty power set forth in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America. As Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution:
[T]hough the [treaty] power is...general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed as to destroy the fundamental laws of the State
. A power given by the Constitution cannot be so construed to authorize a destruction of powers given in the same instrument.... A treaty to change the organization of government, or annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy, what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people. II J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Section 1508 (5th ed. 1891); Accord, H. St. G. Tucker, Limitations on the Treaty-Making Power, supra, at Sections 85-87
Twice recently, the United States Supreme Court has addressed the question of constitutionally reserved state powers in response to congressional legislation pursuant to grant of power over interstate commerce contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. On the second occasion, in United States v. Morrison, --- U.S. ---, 146 L Ed 2d 658 (2000), the high court ruled that Congress could not, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, usurp traditional state power to prohibit rape when such conduct is not, by nature, “economic.” Otherwise, Chief Justice William J. Rehnquist contended, “Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority....” Id., 146 L Ed 2d at 674
Surely, if Congress may not use the commerce clause to completely obliterate the constitution’s distinction between national and local authority, the president and the United States Senate ought not be able to use the treaty power to completely obliterate the Constitution of the United States of America's distinction between international and local authority.
Yet, that is precisely what the president and United States Senate did in 1948 by negotiating and ratifying the Charter of the United Nations; the purpose of which - if honored - would obliterate all distinctions between international and domestic matters.
Congress did precisely that when it authorized United States' membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization which purports to exercise jurisdiction over “the minds of men” to the end that they might be “constructed” in such a way as to bring about international peace and security. See 22 U.S.C. Section 287m and preamble to the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Although it may be true that international peace and security depends upon the minds of men, as the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization states, there is no more foundational constitutional liberty protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America than the following: no government has jurisdiction over the minds of individual human beings.
It is time for this Congress to return to these time-honored American principles of liberty; not to put their hope in the promise of some international organization like the United Nations which would replace the Constitution of the United States of America with its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thereby compromising American liberties in favor of government-imposed programs designed to enhance the economic and social well-being of peoples all around the world. See generally UN Human Development Report 2000. “
AMEN!
Our President is a traitor. You know it and I know it. Are we the only ones willing to admit it?
">>President George Bush remarked to the Texas State Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas on June 29, 1992, that he “‘didn’t have to get permission from some old goat in the United States Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.’” 28 “Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc.” 1119 (June 29, 1992)"<<
“ The "free traders" in Congress, the Senate and on this forum support NAFTA, FTAA, and CAFTA which are all treaties and all facilitate the destruction of the America by the impediment of our economy and the institution of global socialism.