Replies

In legal filings, lawyers for Mr. New argued that under the Constitution and the law that governs America's involvement in the world body, the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, the president may not send American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress. The attorneys also said that under the Constitution, no American soldier was obliged to answer to a military officer who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress.

Mr. New's counsel further argued that forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment. Their final claim was that American soldiers could not accept the U.N. caps and shoulder patches under a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from taking "emoluments" from a foreign government.

Unquote

Did clinton get authorization from congress?

the president may not send American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress.

That's actually the opposite of what the Act says.

The attorneys also said that under the Constitution, no American soldier was obliged to answer to a military officer who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress.

Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.

The President, as Commander-In-Chief, and pursuant to the Act, may place US military personnel under any UN command - since all US military personnel are ultimately responsible to the President, who may withdraw them from UN action at any time.

forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment

When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.

Their final claim was that American soldiers could not accept the U.N. caps and shoulder patches under a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from taking "emoluments" from a foreign government.

This is the second most laughable. A UN cover or shoulder patch is not an "emolument" any more than a US soldier in WWII eating in a British mess was receiving a foreign "emolument" in the form of beans and toast.

Did clinton get authorization from congress?

Indeed he did.

Before he was born.

BTW, what Constitutional arguments did New's attorneys make when he was convicted of stealing a doctor's prescription pads and forging prescriptions for narcotics?

Does the Constitution recognize special rights for junkies?