Posted on 08/01/2005 5:55:40 AM PDT by Chuck54
Edited on 08/03/2005 5:44:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Krauthammer looks like Dr. Seuss drew him.
That towering intellect Chris Dodd called John Bolton "Damaged Goods" If someone who helped Teddie Boy make a waitress-sandwich on the floor of le Brassierie a few years ago can still serve in the senate, the definition of "Damaged Goods" must be somewhat forgiving.
I said, pass the Senate and House and be able to override a veto.
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 1146 IH
To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
I have at times wondered what American history would have been if the South's politicians had stayed in the Congress and continued their fight there rather than leaving in a huff.Surely it would have been less bloody and destructive of that which they hoped to protect.
I used to advocate the U.s out of the U.N and vice versa but now I believe we must stay in until the (dis)organization is dissolved. When the U.N. joins the League of Nations on history's scrapheap freedom will breathe easier.
hmmmmmmmm...I hope you are right. Personally, I am shocked that it passed the House with so many yes votes...(I don't remember the count, but considering the GOP is the majority, it is TOO many).
With Orrin Hatch and Specter, probably McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Warner, Graham, Frist, you are well on your way to 67 votes...
CLASSIC!!!
Yeah, she's more like a 9 of 7!
And the Russian summer house ( the first and the second one they moved into, after they sold the first one [which had been J.P. Morgan's estate} to the Catholic church for use as a nunnery !), in Glen Cove, was bugged and spied on by us.
Has this Bill gotten out of Committee? Has it ever been voted on?
;-)
Thank you!
This answer has evolved into a better and more comparative answer.
I asked, "We need the number of recess appointments that Clintoon made and how many GW has made."
Dimensio responded:
Clinton made 144 in 8 years.
Bush Sr. made 77 in 4 years.
Reagan made 243 in 8 years.
GWB has made, thus far, 106 with Bolton being the most recent.
Most recess appointments go by without any major fuss. I can only recall one previous recess appointment that the current president has made that got any real attention (Charles Pickering). A few of Clinton's recess appointments were decidedly controversial, but the only one that I recall that really attracted a great deal of vitrol was James Hormel, with Senator James Inhofe proposing to block all future Clinton nominees in retaliation, and a number of other Republican senators having choice words about the "abuse of power" and circumventing the will of the Senate -- basically saying roughly what Democrats are saying now about the recess appointment of Bolton. Sour grapes all around, but this time the shoe is on the other hand.
INTRODUCING THE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY RESTORATION ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - March 08, 2005)
[Page: E381] GPO's PDF
---
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 contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United
[Page: E382] GPO's PDF
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ``constitutional interpretive'' approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ``back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,'' a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1-10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978). As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ``constitution for the universal society,'' and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people ``and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people's representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders' Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ``We the People of the United States'' and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ``We the peoples of the United Nations.'' But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ``by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.'' Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ``[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.'' Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state's legislature as it saw fit. The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 648-52.
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ``for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter'' and any changes proposed by the conference may ``take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.'' Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ``shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,'' even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84.
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ``Legislatures have no power to ratify'' a plan changing the form of government, only ``the people'' have such power. 4 The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 651.
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ``peoples'' of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.
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) [Emphasis added.]
While no previous United Nations' secretary general has been so bold, Annan's proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ``human rights and fundamental freedoms'' simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ``to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware ..... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights ..... to establish conditions under which justice ..... can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.'' Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ``to ..... establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity .....''
[Page: E383] GPO's PDF
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 Untied 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.
The previous poster inquired "as to how the congress implements the US from disassociating from the UN?"
That appears to be the answer.
Anything else?
If we were to leave altogether, those small countries wouldn't consider themselves obligated to follow UN dictates at all.
I have at times wondered what American history would have been if the South's politicians had stayed in the Congress and continued their fight there rather than leaving in a huff.Surely it would have been less bloody and destructive of that which they hoped to protect.
That's quite possibly true, but I don't see the analogy the current situation, unless you're seriously suggesting that withdawal will trigger a war with the UN. (they'd lose bigtime)
I used to advocate the U.s out of the U.N and vice versa but now I believe we must stay in until the (dis)organization is dissolved. When the U.N. joins the League of Nations on history's scrapheap freedom will breathe easier.
A big part of the reason why the League of Nations was thrown on to history's scrapheap was that we were never a member. That would be an even greater liability to the UN today, given that we have a much greater share of the world's power than we did back then.
Regarding John Bolton, President Bush understands, as George Washington understood, what leadership qualities it takes to win.
George Washington is quoted as saying:
"An army of asses led by a lion is vastly superior to an army of lions led by an ass."
Thanks for the info.
.
During the 1990's then CLINTON Commerce Secretary RON BROWN personally transported $400,000 in Communist Vietnam Army Money to then DNC Chairman CHRIS DODD.
When BROWN was being investigateD for this by Congress he personally told CLINTON that he wasn't going to take the Fall.
About a week later he personally ended up with a bullet in the back of his head sitting on a Bosnia hillside swimming in Air Force passenger Jet wreckage.
DODD now screams about BOLTON going to the UN to clean house.
Any guesses why..???
DICK MORRIS just said on the FoX News Channel that a "Bad" UN Ambassador BOLTON will be so popular in a year's time for his having cleaned up the place that he will be so popular that he'll have no trouble being comfirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Or beating his detractors in any Primary Election.
.
LOL!
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.