Posted on 04/29/2003 8:26:37 AM PDT by 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.
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
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.
Why would it hurt the Rs? Most Republicans and Democrats hate the UN.
Why do you think Bush would veto it? He sure didn't veto CFR.
They would oppose monetary reform in the UN because it would be a government spending issue and they are dedicated to opposing Republicans' limiting spending. Whereas total disembarkment would be a foreign policy issue and many Dems would not want to oppose it because they have been to the slaughterhouse and back on the UN issue over Iraq. You have to look at the political gain available on this issue to determine a Democratic guess vote.
You've had the wrong impression. The most distinctive is the liberal "living constitution" where they are dedicated to mass change of the original document where as Republicans are more dedicated to preserving it's original meaning. Libertarians on the other hand are more strict in the ways of preserving it's meaning. Republicans are a little more reserved into common sense judgement. If anyone is a RINO, it's your State Senator and my ex-Governor. Libertarians vote more in favor of Republican issues than Democratic ones because of the basis of the constitution. That's the issues that seperates these parties.
I Know. It wasn't intended as an arguement toward you. I just wanted to clear it up. I meant to put "He had the wrong impression" and the RINO was an intended label for Republicns who voted in favor of Democraticissues, not libertarian. I do agree that Libertarians are a little crazy on the issues but was FDR crazy or a libertarian prior to World War II with his Isolationist stance? I don't believe it's a political issue as I had said in my last post.
I Know. It wasn't intended as an arguement toward you. I just wanted to clear it up. I meant to put "He had the wrong impression" and the RINO was an intended label for Republicns who voted in favor of Democraticissues, not libertarian. I do agree that Libertarians are a little crazy on the issues but was FDR crazy or a libertarian prior to World War II with his Isolationist stance? I don't believe it's a political issue as I had said in my last post.
Bullsh!t. We wouldn't have spent all that time dicking around trying to get our UN approval numbers up. One good Congressional resolution and we would have marched off to war regardless of what Chirac and Company were whining about.
Soon after 9-11, before Sadam and his WMD's and UN resolutions were a factor, we were beginning a "War on Terror" with Afghanistan. Here is something on what he brought to Congress then.
Ron Paul realizes one of the effects of 9-11 on this country, was our awarness of how much hate there is in the world for the United States. Back in Oct. 2001 he called for the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal along with financial rewards, as incentives for private citizens to hunt for the terrorists. He offered this constitional "tool" to the Congress for consideration in fighting the war on terror.
One year later, when it came to counting on allies for Operation Iraqi Freedom, we evidenced some of the lost love for our country by foreign heads of state who dropped their support. While I support our troops and I'm proud of how our military got the job done in Iraq, hearing how much more we are hated now is unsettling, knowing there are al queda cells in South America (as well as in our country) and our borders are not protected. Didn't an Egyptian inhale some anthrax yesterday, on his way to Canada? I don't for a minute think that Mr. Paul is incapable of effectively fighting our enemies. A lot of terrorists could be caught using mercenaries who are native to the ME to track them down. Even if Bush had to invade Iraq, an operation using Letters of Marque should be ongoing as long as there are terrorists groups intent on our destruction, besides the Iraqis.
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm
In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. (See Ron Paul's Press Release.)
The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.
The Letters combined with high rewards for the capture of terrorists would create an incentive for Americans to conduct these operations. It would supplement U.S. government activity such as seeking out and eliminating the financial networks that terrorists use.
There has been little discussion in the mass media about Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Since these are authorized by the U.S. Constitution, introduced in a bill in Congress, and provide a possible alternative or supplement to U.S. military action, there should be more discussion and then action taken on this possibility. The terrorist threat seems to me to be a good example of the attacks that the Founders of the U.S. Constitution thought would be remedied by such Letters.
It's good that at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives is familiar with the U.S. Constitution and has taken action to implement this dormant power against attacks on the U.S. Why have other members of Congress not joined Paul to pass his bill on Letters of Marque and Reprisal?
Which war? The "War on Terror" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?Ron Paul, nor anyone else, IIRC, was advocating removing Sadam by force, after 9-11, when the "War on Terror" was announced.
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.