Posted on 06/21/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by anotherview
Specifically, this clause is statement of the warrant to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party.
wideawake hit the nail on the head here.
vfb stuttgart: You’re new so you haven’t read my previous posts on the U.N. If you want to know my feelings about the organization here is a recent example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1852521/posts
Yep, I post articles from UN Watch and call for the abolition of the organization and it’s replacement with an organization of free, democratic nations. There are few Freepers who are more anti-UN than I am.
Having said that... the reality is that the current Congress and President are internationalists who support the U.N. Since I have to live in the real world I support votes like this and cheer speeches by people like former U.S. Ambassador Bolton and Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman. At least tell the world the unvarnished truth they don’t want to hear.
The sponsors of the resolution cited the UN charter to support their argument that Ahmadinejad should be charged.The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'
Birds of a feather.
I personally believe that every single member of Congress should do anything within their power to end all US involvement with the UN by the close of business today, if possible. I don't think it's going to happen; but, since you asked, that's what I would like to see.
Ron Paul seems to be the only Congressman who consistently advocates complete withdrawal from the UN in all respects. I believe that he is right, and I support him for that.
But in the meantime, you’d not hold a nation accountable for violating its treaties. Interesting.
Aritcle 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 >
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
If any group could be considered guilty of 'piracy', it could be the UN.. and based on this, it is within Congresses duty to grant a letter of marque to the UN. A letter of marquis basically grants a non-government entity the blessing to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party.
What part of the real world is the U.N. in?
Take it up with Congress and the Supreme Court.
The Constitution doesn't authorize you as its interpreter.
I'll just point out that most treaties include transfers of value, most treaties are intended to be for perpetuity, and most treaties involve modulating existing policy.
The grounds on which you object to the UN Charter are incredibly flimsy.
We have only to choose new elected officials in order to change that reality.
List of current presidential candidates who are running on a platform of leaving the UN:
Ron Paul
Percentage of votes garnered by Ron Paul in his last national election:
00.47%
Good luck.
Forty-Second Street and First Avenue, right off FDR Drive.
Kitty-corner from the Sutton apartments.
I don't believe a good End (condemning Ahmadinejad) justifies the use of bad Means (the UN).
I believe it is a left, but otherwise sounds about right.
If you are coming from the north you do have to take a left off the FDR.
I'm always coming from the south if I'm driving to midtown Manhattan.
Bookends of the political spectrum
“The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’”
Great! So when are they arresting Bill Clinton for the invasion of Yugoslavia? Last I heard from the libs, “genocide” has come to mean the mass removal of people on an ethnic or religious (or whatever else they pick) basis.
For that matter, what’s keeping the UN from trying to arrest President Bush for the same thing in Iraq? Sure it’s different, but they don’t want to see it that way.
Y’all want UN troops showing up at your door using UN laws as trumping the constitution, well good for you! As for me, I think I’ll just stick to American law and let other folks in their countries stick to their laws.
“The Constitution doesn’t authorize you as its interpreter.”
Sure it does. You can find it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
It doesn’t grant his/her interpretation the force of law, but it sure as heck authorizes anyone to opine on their personal views of what it means.
“List of current presidential candidates who are running on a platform of leaving the UN:
Ron Paul
Percentage of votes garnered by Ron Paul in his last national election:
00.47%
Good luck.”
Percentage of heliocentrists in 1543: probably less than 00.47%.
Wow! Ptolemy was right after all!
Ron Paul’s failure to win popular votes does not mean his ideas are wrong. If Ron Paul’s views of the UN are correct, we’ll all need more than just luck.
I say this is no sarcasm at all: Thank you for providing what I am sure is Paul’s rational for his “no” vote.
I’m not supporting him, but I’ve always appreciated that if there’s ever a 434-1 vote, you know who the “1” is, and you know he had a surprising, principled, and conservative reason for his vote.
If a RINO can be outside of the party to the RIGHT, then Paul certainly is a RINO. He makes no bones about being a Libertarian.
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.