Ron Paul to Tom Delay: Get the US out of the UN

The Liberty Committee ^ | 04/29/03 | Herbert W. Titus

[m1-lightning]

The Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or the American people.

The Charter of the United Nations is commonly assumed to be 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 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.

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.

H.R. 1146 - The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 is the only viable solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," lest the nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments.

---

Text of Congressman Ron Paul's Letter to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

April 16, 2003

Honorable Tom DeLay Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Mr. DeLay:

I would like to thank you for your long and tireless support for American sovereignty. I am writing to ask your assistance in a matter of great importance to our future as a nation. As you may know, I have introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, H.R. 1146. This bill ends the United States' participation in and funding of the United Nations.

Considering the abysmal performance of the United Nations in all aspects of the Iraq crisis and war, I believe now is the time to revisit this critical issue. More than ever, now is the time for the United States to get out of the United Nations. More Americans every day are questioning America's involvement in and support for the United Nations.

That is why I ask for your help to bring H.R. 1146 to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

In the past you have consistently voted for my amendments to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bills that cut off funding for the United Nations. I have always appreciated your support for these amendments and the concern for American sovereignty that they represent.

Let me thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul, M.D. Member of Congress

---

Congressional Legislation

American Sovereignty Restoration Act Bill # H.R.1146

Original Sponsor: Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)

Cosponsor Total: 9 (last sponsor added 04/11/2003) 9 Republicans

About This Legislation: H.R. 1146 - The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 ends membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.R. 1146 repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. The act directs the president of the United States to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. mission to the U.N.

H.R. 1146 prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N.; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation. The act bars U.S. armed forces from serving under U.N. command.

[m1-lightning]

Good Move.

[eBelasco]

the authorization of total funds for the US for all UN activities is not to exceed 1/x. (where x is the total number of participating countries)

I think this should be the policy of all nations that are members of the UN. At least until they all wake up and agree to do away with the abomination.

[m1-lightning]

Take The Poll

[Consort]

It looks like you may have completely misunderstood my comment.

[adam_az]

"So you approve of our continued involvement with the UN?"

Do you still beat your wife?

That's a similarly unanswerable question.

Thinking we will disentangle totally with the UN is pure wishful thinking. Part of me would giggle with glee should it happen, but realistically, it never will.

DO you support Bush? He seems to think it's important to remain engaged through the UN.

He also seems determined to roll back it's global governance goals, and make it more accountable.

[Dead Corpse]

Do you still beat your wife?

Curious, must have me mixed up with your father. However I still have those pictures of your wife however...

Now that the insults are done...

Mr. Bush told the UN to take a hike on Iraq. That doesn't really seem all that cozy to me. As for entanglement. We never should have gotten to this point to begin with. Any effort to roll back the UN's influence on our political landscape is a good thing that should be lauded. Not derrided.

[TheGrimReaper]

A little U.N. trivia:

Q.How many tyrannical, despot dictators have been removed from power under the auspices of the United Nations since its inception 58 years ago?

A. Zero. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. -0-

[adam_az]

Your self perception of your cleverness exceeds the reality. I'll consider the source, and charitably consider that your ignorance, rather than ill will, were the source of your insults.

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Think about this.

It wasn't an insult.

There is no yes or no answer to this question, which was my point.

(Yes) I still beat my wife. (bad answer)

(No) I don't STILL beat my wife, which implies that I once did but have since stopped.

"Mr. Bush told the UN to take a hike on Iraq. That doesn't really seem all that cozy to me. As for entanglement. We never should have gotten to this point to begin with. Any effort to roll back the UN's influence on our political landscape is a good thing that should be lauded. Not derrided."

ROLL BACK the influence is what Bush has been doing, and if you reread my other post, you will see I DID laud him for it. Bush told the UN to take a hike - he didn't WITHDRAW FROM THE UN which is what this thread is about.

Have you always been such a mental midget, Yes or No?

[reelfoot]

Thank you for this post. I plan to contact my congressman and urge support. Anyone who values American sovereignty should support this. Kudos for Rep. Paul for his stand on this issue. I don't want Rwanda, New Guinea, etc. setting tax rates for me in future UN votes.

[k2blader]

Ron Paul is a RINO of a different color.

Haaa!!

And agreed.

[grapeape]

AWWW Yeh baby. They gotta pay to play!!!!

There is also something else that many of us don't realize. By over-funding the UN it looks like our puppet to other countries. This plan ensures that when it becomes a useful tool again (some 50 to 100 years from now)it will have the legitimacy necessary to help resolve the petty disputes that come up between people.

Time to push the UN waaay to the back.

[m1-lightning]

When Ron Paul suggested withdrawing from the UN he didn't necessarily mean withdrawing from allied support and foreign affairs. When Ron Paul made that suggestion, it was blown out of proportion and he was labeled an isolationist. NATO is not associated with the UN and we would still be involved in forign affairs regarding protection of allies. Withdrawing from the UN would remove us from the socialogical beauracracy that the UN mandates. What has the UN ever done for America besides spend our money and kill our troops? Who cares who sponsored the bill. It's a good idea to get out before we get involved in another war.

[m1-lightning]

it will have the legitimacy necessary to help resolve the petty disputes that come up between people.

Is that really America's problem? We donate an indefinite amount of money and medical aid to nations in need and what do we get for it? The major members of the UN backstab us when we need help and the people that recieve the aid from the US continue their anti-Americanism. We will never be able to use the UN as a useful tool.

[JustPiper]

Ron Paul is one of our best! We pay the un 25% to have Libya rule over human relations? What law/rule have they EVER passed that counted? While they continue to ignore South Africa and let them continue to lose limbs and look the other way. So many countries, so many atrocities and the un does what?! I say not only GET OUT of the UN, I say revoke their lease!!!

[Dead Corpse]

Your self perception of your cleverness exceeds the reality.

Yes... and your mother was a courtesean of such exquisite skill and Herculean endurance that all the armies of the Empire have had their thirst slakened by her alone.

As for the UN, it exceeds its mandate writing legislation for its member states. They are there to provide a forum, nothing more. The abuses being perpetrated by the UN, the failure of their programs in just about ever endeavor they have butted their noses into, and their socialitic operational agenda, are all anathema to the continuance of our Nation as a Constitutional Republic.

That it has gotten so bad that a bill like this must be tendered, should be a good indicator of how far adrift things have gotten.

As for your parting jibe on mental stature... no matter how small I may be in comparison to the general populations accuity, I rest easy knowing that those such as you will always have me to look up to.

[m1-lightning]

Ditto... and continue the boycotts of the backstabbers.

[adam_az]

I don't understand why you arguing against me and calling my mother a whore, since I have clearly said I'm not thrilled with the UN. My position isn't that far from yours. I just said it's unrealistic to believe that such a bill would actually pass, or that Bush would sign it if it did.

As for your parting jibe on mental stature... no matter how small I may be in comparison to the general populations accuity, I rest easy knowing that those such as you will always have me to look up to.

That would be you on the left. :)

[grapeape]

Is that really America's problem?

What? We never even implied that We donate an indefinite amount of money

And what is this? We are charged and libs insist on paying 300,000,000 per year. We will never be able to use the UN as a useful tool.

It is completely ridiculous to assume that a large group of free people can't reform that institution. Especially if the funding is cut back so much as to take the incentive for the crooks to remain.

[m1-lightning]

Knock it off.

This post was intended to get activist support for the bill. If you do not wish to contact your rep. of sign the petition, then that's your perogative. If you do, then all the better.

[m1-lightning]

It is completely ridiculous to assume that a large group of free people can't reform that institution

Uh, yeah it's quite ridiculous. You will never remove the greed from the cold dead fingers of the leaders of the UN. Freedom is compromised when money is involved with political leaders of poor nations. It's nothing more than a black market Wall Street.