U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | treaty |
treaty
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.
treaty
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.
treaty
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:7
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.
treaty
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:9
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialist Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
treaty
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.
treaty
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 13:6
The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.
treaty
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 18:11
It is said that we do not have this authority; that we should give it to the President; that he has it under the Constitution based on his authority to formulate foreign policy. It is not there. The Congress has the responsibility to declare war, write letters of marks and reprisals, call up the militia, raise and train army and regulate foreign commerce. The President shares with the Senate treaty power as well as appointment of ambassadors. The President cannot even do that alone.
treaty
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:5
Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes.
treaty
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:37
It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake and how could Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to disintegrate.
treaty
Environmental Regulatory Issues
22 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 31:13
A global warming hysteria, based on speculative computer models instead of actual temperature data, to justify a treaty to impose federal and international taxes, rationing and prohibitions on all U.S. carbon-based energy sources.
treaty
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO’s war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO’s bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia.
treaty
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.
treaty
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.
treaty
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 48:6
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.
treaty
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:9
[Genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
treaty
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
treaty
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:12
When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:28
The World Trade Organization has been in existence for 5 years. We voted to join the World Trade Organization in the fall of 1994 in the lame duck session after the Republicans took over the control of the House and Senate, but before the new Members were sworn in. So a lame duck session was brought up and they voted, and by majority vote we joined the World Trade Organization, which, under the Constitution, clearly to anybody who has studied the Constitution, is a treaty. So we have actually even invoked a treaty by majority vote.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:34
You say, oh, that cannot be. We do not have to do what they tell us. Well, technically we do not have to, but we will not be a very good member, and this is what we agreed to in the illegal agreement. Certainly it was not a legitimate treaty that we signed. But in this agreement we have come up and said that we would obey what the WTO says.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:40
Now, the whole idea that treaties could be passed and undermine the ability of our Congress to pass legislation or undermine our Constitution, this was thought about and talked about by the founders of this country. They were rather clear on the idea that a treaty, although the treaty can become the law of the land, a treaty could never be an acceptable law of the land if it amended or changed the Constitution. That would be ridiculous, and they made that very clear.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:41
It could have the effect of the law of the land, as long as it was a legitimate constitutional agreement that we entered into. But Thomas Jefferson said if the treaty power is unlimited, then we do not have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:42
So that is very important. We cannot just sit back and accept the idea that the World Trade Organization, we have entered into it, it was not a treaty, it was an agreement, but we have entered into it, and the agreement says we have to do what they tell us, even if it contradicts the whole notion that it is the Congress’ and people’s responsibility to pass their own laws with regard to the environment, with regard to labor and with regard to tax law.
treaty
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:44
Alexander Hamilton also talked about this. He said a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any expressed exception to the powers of the Constitution of the United States.
treaty
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:4
* But all of this said, this new 66 page ‘free trade’ bill is not about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ‘managed trade’ rather than that of free trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ‘[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.’
treaty
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:3
We are talking about a very complex treaty, an illegal treaty, an unconstitutional treaty. This is the size of the treaty. This is the size of the agreement. This has nothing to do with trying to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact, when this was passed in 1994, the thought was and the statement was made on the House floor that it would lower taxes; and that I would support.
treaty
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:6
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.
treaty
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.
treaty
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:13
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:14
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:15
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 Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:16
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:21
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:22
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:23
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:24
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:25
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:26
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.
treaty
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:30
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.
treaty
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:90
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 UN Rome Treaty, indicating our willingness to establish an International Criminal Court. This gives the UN authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. Even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations. Presidents have, by Executive Order, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent.
treaty
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:17
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 U.N.-Rome treaty indicating our willingness to establish an international criminal court. This gives the U.N. authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. But even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations.
treaty
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?
treaty
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:4
3. Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?
treaty
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:4
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
treaty
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:8
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.
treaty
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:9
It is clear that war can only be declared by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us to war at some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war.
treaty
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 31:7
The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.
treaty
H.R. 1646
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 32:9
The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we should be contending with.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:2
Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DELAY because it singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to “rescue” citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of legitimacy to the ICC.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:3
It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:4
The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:5
The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”
treaty
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
treaty
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.
treaty
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:2
This means that even though the United States has not ratified the treaty- though it was signed by President Clinton’s representative at midnight on the last day- the Court will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen, from President Bush on down. The Bush Administration has admirably stated its opposition to the International Criminal Court, but it unfortunately has taken no proactive measures to “unsign” Clinton’s initial signature or to make it known that the United States has no intention of cooperating with, providing funding to, or recognizing any authority of this international court. The clock is ticking, however, and the day of reckoning is close at hand.
treaty
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.
treaty
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:4
Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen -- military personnel and civilian alike.
treaty
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:4
On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection of the servicemen.
treaty
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:5
But the interesting thing is that under this Rome Convention, the agreement is once 60 nations sign the treaty, it goes into effect. Even with what the President did by rescinding the signature and saying we do not want any part of it, we are still under international law under the understanding that our servicemen could be called into International Criminal Court.
treaty
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:7
Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically- motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” — which undermines American sovereignty.
treaty
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:9
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”
treaty
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:10
Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president’s decision to neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the Treaty.
treaty
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:2
On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)]." President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions.
treaty
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:3
By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is "open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;" and that "the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty" – which seriously threatens American sovereignty.
treaty
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: "Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty." Secretary Rumsfeld added, "When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens."
treaty
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:6
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, explaining the president’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, made the following critical point: "Notwithstanding our disagreements with the Rome Treaty, the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC; but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court." There is no indication that Undersecretary Grossman’s message has been received.
treaty
Repudiating A Treaty Signature
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented to repudiate a signature on a treaty, but it is very important. They must have felt it was extremely important for the protection of our soldiers. So it is this discomfort we might feel about the repudiation of a signature versus doing what we think is best to protect our troops. I honestly believe that this is very necessary.
treaty
Repudiating A Treaty Signature
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 40:4
And it is the jurisdiction, it is the sovereignty, it is the civil liberties of the American soldier that we are dealing with. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) brought this up, and this is very true. These trials, they do not have juries. The judges are appointed in secret. They cannot face their accusers. And we are going to join an organization like that, endorse it, send money and say that our troops may become subject to this? To me, it is an extremely dangerous situation that we have here now, because we did not even ratify the treaty. We have repudiated the signature and they are still saying this is going to apply to our soldiers. We have a serious problem on our hands and we should at least do this very little thing here, because this is a sense of Congress resolution that we would not like to have the President spend any money on this, and this would support his position.
treaty
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:32
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
treaty
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:12
Mawyer had intended to deliver 30 bags filled with more than 60,000 petitions to the U.N. from American citizens. The petitions addressed a variety of issues of concern to citizens, including the U.N.’s newly ratified International Criminal Court, a plan to implement a U.N. standing army, the Kyoto global warming treaty, protection of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N. missions abroad, and a host of other issues relating to national sovereignty.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:8
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when 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 powers (3) governed by international law.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:10
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 Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:11
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:16
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:17
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:18
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:19
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:20
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:21
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.
treaty
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:25
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.
treaty
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 51:6
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
treaty
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed : Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.
treaty
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 25:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.
treaty
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
treaty
Don’t Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 32:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate means….”
treaty
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons
17 May 2004 2004 Ron Paul 34:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident — even to its most determined advocates — we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .” Note the phrase “use all appropriate means.”
treaty
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:3
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”).
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:2
The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in the early 1970s by the “New International Economic Order,” a United Nations political movement designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrial nations to communist and undeveloped nations. President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat this treaty would pose to America’s sovereignty and economic interests and rightly rejected the Treaty in 1982.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:3
Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate “Agreement” that purported to amend the Treaty. This “corrected treaty” was also deemed unacceptable by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994. Now we are once again facing a terribly flawed treaty that will hand over more of our sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations — just at a time when the extent of the United Nations’ corruption is becoming more evident through the oil for food scandal in Iraq.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:4
What is specifically wrong with the Law of the Sea Treaty?
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:5
The Law of the Sea Treaty will deem the oceans of the Earth as the “Common Heritage of Mankind.” The Treaty dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind. The effect of this will be U.N. control over the world’s seabeds — a full 70 percent of the earth’s surface.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:6
The Law of the Sea Treaty will also create, for the first time in history, an international body with the authority to collect taxes from American citizens. It is truly a U.N. global tax. This will come about as a fee on private enterprise and nation states from seabed mining, offshore oil platforms, and other raw material recovery activities. These fees will first be paid by the governments of the signatory states, which will then have the burden of collecting the monies back from the private enterprises engaged in seabed mining activities.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:7
This treaty will create a Law of the Sea Tribunal, which will claim — and already has claimed — jurisdiction over the onshore as well as within the territorial sea or economic zones of coastal nations. This U.N. Tribunal could very well rule in a manner contrary to U.S. military, counterterrorism, and commercial interests.
treaty
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:8
Mr. Speaker, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example of “taxation without representation” that our Founding Fathers rebelled against. We should under no circumstances surrender one bit of American sovereignty or treasure to the United Nations or any other global body. I hope my colleagues will join me by co-sponsoring this Sense of the Congress legislation and defeating this destructive treaty.
treaty
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 24:3
The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon’s tragic recent history, and its slow return from the chaos of the civil war — a revival in which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role. We should remember, however, that it was the Lebanese government itself that requested assistance from Syria in 1976, to help keep order in the face of a civil war where Maronite Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze. This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So, while foreign occupation of any country against that country’s will is to be condemned, it is not entirely clear that this is the case with Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. What most won’t say here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Who is to say that this is not the best approach to avoid a return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced that we must immediately blame Syria for this attack and we must “do something” to avenge something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States.
treaty
Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee
1 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 25:3
A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority” created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to — for the first time in history — impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and U.N. taxation of Americans will become a reality.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:3
Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion’s share of the UN budget, UN bureaucrats are still not satisfied. They want direct access to U.S. taxpayer money with out the U.S. government middleman. A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority” created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to — for the first time in history — impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and UN taxation of Americans will become a reality.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:8
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:9
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:10
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 Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter” as a “constituent treaty,” leading international political authorities state that — “[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares “that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.” The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is “similar . . . to national constitutional law,” proclaiming that “because of its status as a constitution for the world community,” the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for “implied powers” to carry out the United Nations’ “comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.” Id. at 27
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:11
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:16
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:17
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:18
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:19
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:20
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:21
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.
treaty
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:25
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.
treaty
Military Appropriations
26 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 53:2
I do retain strong concerns over some of the funds appropriated under the Military Construction and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program sections of this bill.
treaty
Military Appropriations
26 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 53:4
I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds for, as the bill states, “the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations (including international military headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area.” NATO is a relic of the Cold War and most certainly has no purpose some fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union. As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, having outlived its usefulness as a defensive alliance, the Organization has become an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism. NATO deserves not a dime of American taxpayer’s money, nor should the United States remain a member.
treaty
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:16
The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history.
treaty
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:2
His deceit and manipulation of the prewar intelligence from Europe dragged America into an unnecessary conflict that cost the world and us dearly. Without the disastrous Versailles Treaty, World War II could have been averted and the rise to power of Communists around the world might have been halted.
treaty
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:27
There has been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting U.N. sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has never reported any evidence of undeclared sources or special nuclear material in Iran or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. ElBaradei states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty required IAEA safeguards agreement.
treaty
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:28
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the United States, and we refused to believe U.N. inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us; now we are hysterically wondering if some day she might decide to build a bomb in self-interest. Anti-Iran voices beating the drums of confrontation distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It is the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
treaty
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:29
Likewise, our proliferation of nuclear material to India is a clear violation of the nuclear proliferation treaty as well.
treaty
Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 29:2
I want to quote from Article IV of the NonProliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signator: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”
treaty
Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 29:3
Our position is that they do not have the right to enrich. Those who deny the right to enrich are more in violation of the NPT Treaty than Iran itself.
treaty
Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 29:4
What do we do for those who are totally in defiance to international law in the NPT Treaty, like India and Pakistan? We reward them and subsidize them. At the same time, there is no proof that there has been any violation of this treaty by Iran, and yet the rewards go to those who are in total defiance.
treaty
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 32:5
Second, we must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy, in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even by nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stirs up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and creates even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East.
treaty
Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 48:5
By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the United States is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We must remember that Iran has never been found in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty. U.N. inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director ElBaradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of source or special nuclear material to a military purpose.
treaty
Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 48:6
As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has, according to the treaty, the “inalienable right to the development, research and production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”
treaty
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:52
We insist that the U.N. ignore the guarantees under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that grants countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the U.N. and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than preventing it.
treaty
Iran Freedom Support Act
28 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 89:6
The third point. This bill rejects the notion of the nonproliferation treaty. The Iranians have never been proven to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty; and this explicitly says that they cannot enrich, uranium even for private and commercial purposes.
treaty
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:10
That Iran has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet we claim they do not? By denying this right to Iran, we actually are violating the NPT.
treaty
Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 78:4
We must keep in mind that Iran has still not been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, much of the information regarding Iran’s nuclear program is coming to us via thoroughly discredited sources like the MeK, a fanatical cult that is on our State Department’s terror list. Additionally, the same discredited neo-conservatives who pushed us into the Iraq war are making similarly exaggerated claims against Iran. How often do these “experts” have to be proven wrong before we start to question their credibility?
treaty
BLOCKADE OF IRAN
10 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 43:11
Quite frankly, this talk about this violation, the Iranians were asked by IAEA not to resume enrichment. They had voluntarily stopped enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have every right under the Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich for peaceful purposes. In the last year, there have been nine unannounced inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. They have never once been found in violation.
treaty
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:3
I do find it ironic that this resolution “calls on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to begin earnest negotiations, without preconditions, directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives.” For years US policy has been that no meeting or negotiation could take place with Iran until certain preconditions are met by Iran . Among these is a demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment, which Iran has the right to do under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is little wonder why some claim that resolutions like this are hypocritical.
treaty
RECOGNIZING 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF EGYPT-ISRAEL PEACE TREATY
March 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 40:2
. . . the House of Representatives calls for recognition of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel as a model mechanism upon which partner nations may build to overcome longstanding barriers to peace and effective mutual cooperation.
treaty
RECOGNIZING 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF EGYPT-ISRAEL PEACE TREATY
March 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 40:3
What the resolution fails to mention, and the reason we should not endorse the treaty as a model, is that at the time the peace was being negotiated at Camp David the United States committed itself to an enormous financial aid package to both Egypt and Israel in exchange for their accession to the treaty. Over the past thirty years, the United States taxpayer has transferred to – some might say “bribed” – Israel and Egypt more well over $100 billion as a payoff for their leaders’ signature on the treaty. Particularly in this time of economic hardship, where so many Americans are out of work and facing great financial challenges, I hardly believe we should be celebrating that which increases the strain on taxpayers. I believe we should cease all foreign aid to all countries, as it is a counterproductive and unconstitutional transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to governments overseas.
treaty
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:9
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
treaty
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:14
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,477 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.
treaty
Sanctions on Iran, Part 2
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 105:4
For instance, we now commonly say that the Iranians have no right to enrich. Well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty, and they have not ever been told that they are making a bomb. And what we are saying in this bill is that they can’t enrich anymore. So in a way, you’re violating international law by saying they can’t enrich, period. So that is just looking for trouble.
treaty
Sanctions on Iran, Part 3
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 106:12
This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States . . . to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program.” Article V of the NPT states clearly that, “[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT – has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.
treaty
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
I strongly oppose HR 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act, also known as "fast-track." Constitutionally, treaties are the responsibility of the President to negotiate and the Senate to ratify by a two-thirds majority. During the constitutionally proscribed process, the Senate can make changes to sections it finds offensive or improper. As such, the role of the House of Representatives in the treaty process should be a relatively meager one. They try to get around this by claiming that these "agreements" are somehow different from constitutionally described treaties; but that is only so much fast-talk. In practice, a treaty and these agreements are the same thing.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 2 ... Cached
Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
In blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the United States, the well-being of American families, and even reasonable science, the Clinton administration last week sounded the trumpet blast of victory in signing on with an international treaty dealing with environmental issues.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
In Kyoto, Japan, delegates from more than 150 nations gathered to set new, international guidelines for reducing the so-called "greenhouse" gases. As one might imagine, the villain in the eyes of the participants were the "greedy Americans," and as such we will bear the brunt of the treaty's wrath, while communist China and the world's other oppressive regimes can pollute all they want. Those on the radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference, have been using questionable "science" to raise the fear that some environmental collapse is just around the corner unless immediate, radical action is taken.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
Using the shrill scare-line of impending natural disaster, the world's opponents to liberty have become the world's radical environmentalists… And the leaders of the international environmental movement. So while science is at best uncertain about "evidence" for eminent global environmental disaster, the radical fringe has not let facts stand in their way. And so we have the Kyoto treaty as a result; after all, no political leader wants to be seen as "anti-clean air," no matter what the science says about the provability of the environmentalists' claims.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
Under the terms of this treaty, the US would be required to make big cuts in emissions over the next 15 years, while Communist China – the world's biggest polluter – is not required to do a thing, nor are the hundreds of other polluting Third-World nations.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
This treaty will wreck havoc on the US economy if it becomes law. This will force many industries to close their doors here and move to China (or a similar nation) to escape the new regulations, throwing thousands of Americans out of work. Further, limiting the use of coal, gas and related sources will increase energy prices not only for businesses, but the individual consumer as well. So not only will many families be tossed into unemployment lines by these environmental radicals, but many more people will face a reduced standard of living just to heat their homes.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats. Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an "environmental" treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Perhaps the bottom-line of this treaty is not that polluting is bad, or that we are facing a massive environmental threat. The bottom-line, apparently, is that Americans are bad, and that the notions of free-markets, individual liberty and capitalism are a threat to the radical agenda of the international liberal-left. The treaty makes it clear that anyone can pollute, as long as they are an oppressive regime, a communist dictatorship, or have the approval of the international bureaucrats, though perhaps that is redundant.
treaty
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources. This treaty is bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy. This treaty is nothing more than anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism, and it must be stopped.
treaty
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Institutions like NATO are among the very worst of the global bureaucracies that always seem to continue to exist in search of a problem. The Soviet Union is no longer a force in the world, still NATO goes on, in search of a mission. And worse still, rather than finding problems to solve, it rather ends up creating new problems. This year, the NATO alliance conducted its first offensive war, involving itself in the internal affairs of a nation that neither attacked nor threatened any member of NATO. This, of course, violated the NATO treaty. As long as we continue to delegate matters of foreign affairs to our President and international bureaucrats worldwide, these problems will continue, and indeed worsen.
treaty
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The Constitution, of course, requires all appropriation bills to originate in the House, but when the Interior appropriations bill prohibited funding for implementation of the unratified Kyoto treaty and Clinton's Land Legacy Initiative government land grab at a taxpayer cost of $579 million, that bill was vetoed. Never mind that the infamous National Endowment for the Arts was funded at nearly double the level at which the Administration requested.
treaty
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, they placed the Treaty making authority with the President and the Senate but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effect of this is obvious. The founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade. Hence, our nation was to be governed not by protection but rather by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.
treaty
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Still, we have a long way to go. As US participation in this year's aggressive and treaty-violating NATO war in Kosovo proves, many in positions of leadership believe it is Washington's role to control not only every nook and cranny of our own country, but also to police every street corner in the world.
treaty
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Congressional approval for the WTO came in the lame duck special session in 1994 shortly after Republicans won the House and before the new Members were sworn in. Although it was actually a treaty that brought the WTO into existence it was called an "agreement" thus avoiding the required two-thirds votes in the Senate. A simple majority of both Houses would be enough to put the US in the WTO.
treaty
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The Clinton administration, working overtime during the eleventh hour to consolidate its pitiful "legacy," has taken another step toward imposing global government on U.S. citizens. On New Year's Eve, only hours before a United Nations midnight deadline, the President ordered a U.S. ambassador to sign the 1998 U.N. Rome treaty. This treaty purports to establish a worldwide U.N. criminal court, demonstrating the brazen willingness of global-government proponents to move forward with their plans. Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens. The legal apparatus represents the logical next step for ever-expanding U.N. power: first the phony "international laws" were created, and now a court system is needed to give teeth to the laws. International prisons in Geneva or Brussels cannot be far behind. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development. In fact, U.N. expert Henry Lamb recently stated that Clinton's endorsement of this treaty "may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure."
treaty
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The proposed court will be made up of 18 "judges," elected by an Assembly of member nations ratifying the Rome treaty. Should the U.S. Senate ultimately ratify the treaty, America will have only one vote among hundreds of nations vying to decide which global visionaries will be anointed to judge us (perhaps Kofi Annon? Bill Clinton??). The court will claim international jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity" and the "crime of aggression." The Assembly, of course, is left to define such crimes and aggression. Undoubtedly, leftist political correctness, socialist economic philosophy, and environmentalist falsehoods will decide the definition of a crime with the new court. It clearly is no stretch to predict that the court will attempt to continually expand its jurisdiction in both the civil and criminal realms. 20 years hence, will we see U.S. corporations dragged before the court to answer for "environmental crimes?" Or will U.S. soldiers be prosecuted for their actions in wartime? What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches?
treaty
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The clear conflict between American life under our Constitution and life under a U.N. world government is intensifying. Although the Rome treaty perhaps is unlikely to be ratified by the Senate, the creation of the international tribunal undoubtedly will move forward regardless of our participation. Once the court is in place, there is every reason to believe it will attempt to assert its jurisdiction over all nations, even those that have not ratified the Rome treaty. The U.N. never has hesitated to exert its authority, militarily or otherwise, over non-member nations; surely the international court will follow suit. Remember, precedents set by the U.N. 40 and 50 years ago, such as engaging in "peacekeeping" wars across the globe, were controversial at the time. Today those precedents have become commonplace U.N. practice, despite the objections of many Americans.
treaty
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Clinton administration has set a terrible new precedent. Even if the Rome treaty ultimately is not ratified by the U.S., Clinton's signing it further demonstrates our acquiescence to the global-government planners. Many Americans, rightfully concerned by this trend, have begun to question our participation in the U.N. They have begun to question the influence of global elites. The Clinton administration has used secrecy, stealth, and misinformation to thwart the will of the majority of Americans, who still wish to live in a free sovereign nation. In response, I will reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act in the new 107th Congress. This bill will end U.S. taxpayer support of the U.N., remove the organization from U.S. soil, and guarantee that no U.S. soldier ever serves under U.N. command. I urge all Americans opposed to world government to ask their Representatives to support my bill, while also asking their Senators to vote against ratification of the U.N. Rome treaty.
treaty
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
A sovereign nation cannot wage war at the behest of an international body, and our Constitution expressly reserves warmaking authority to Congress. This most serious power cannot be delegated, as no treaty can supersede the legislative function of Congress. Regardless of the Orwellian doublespeak, UN "peacekeeping actions" are indeed wars. The UN sends our young soldiers to fight under its command in wars that don't involve us. It uses our young soldiers to fight for causes deemed legitimate by international bureaucrats. It escalates deadly conflicts in places like Kosovo and Somalia by inevitably favoring one warring faction over another. More than anything, the UN violates our sovereignty by using our military might in undeclared, unconstitutional wars. My amendment could have eliminated UN war funding and restored proper command over our armed forces. Yet Congress refuses to recognize the problem and end our participation in UN military adventurism.
treaty
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Undeclared wars are only one of many threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN. The recently proposed International Criminal Court seeks to subject U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of an unconstitutional world tribunal. Our soldiers are especially at risk, as wartime actions later could be prosecuted as "crimes of aggression" or "crimes against humanity." One amendment to the State Department bill makes a weak attempt to protect soldiers from prosecution, but the validity of the tribunal itself is not challenged. What about rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? The conflict between our national laws and a global court is clear. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would rescind U.S. approval of the ICC treaty (signed by a Clinton administration official), yet again Congress sidesteps the issue rather than address the central question of whether the Constitution permits American citizens to be brought before an international court.
treaty
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The gun control conference merely represents the newest UN threat to our national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly requires Congress to enact U.S. domestic laws. No treaty or international agreement can transfer this legislative power from Congress to UN bureaucrats, and the 2nd Amendment plainly prohibits restrictions on private gun ownership by U.S. citizens. Yet the trend toward unconstitutional international laws already is firmly established. The UN wants to generate the same acceptance for global gun laws that it has established for global environmental and labor laws. As the global government trend intensifies, the conflicts between internationalism and sovereign constitutional government will only increase. The UN gun control conference provides Congress and the American people with an opportunity to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment over the dictates of global gun-grabbers.
treaty
America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
08 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
However, the United Nations already is working to position itself as the international body responsible for addressing terrorism. UN secretary-general Annan has called for a worldwide treaty against terrorism, as though suicidal terrorists would honor such a treaty! Many supporters of global government, even some in America, believe that the US must present its military plans to the UN for approval before we act. The underlying premise is obvious: according to the globalists, we are all part of one big nation- and America has no sovereign right to use military force unilaterally.
treaty
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America's Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.
treaty
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
You may have heard about the International Criminal Court, which was first proposed in 1998 at a UN treaty conference in Rome. The treaty purports to establish a worldwide UN criminal court that will have jurisdiction over every nation on earth. Once created, the ICC will give the UN the legal apparatus it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens, in direct violation of our own Constitution and national sovereignty.
treaty
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
You may not have heard, however, that the ICC is about to become a reality. The ICC treaty created a completely arbitrary standard to establish the court. Specifically, the Rome treaty states that the court will come into existence when 60 UN member nations ratify the treaty. Why 60? Apparently because ICC proponents thought the number would sound official, and that a ratification period would create an appearance of legitimacy. Never mind that the 60 nations represent a tiny percentage of the world’s population, or that many of the ratifying nations lack any real economic, political, and military power. The globalists simply don’t consider American support particularly important, because it’s much easier to convince countries like Nauru (!) and Gabon to sign up. Apparently ICC bureaucrats are approaching the magic number of 60 ratifications, because a "solemn ceremony" is planned in New York this week to commemorate the new court.
treaty
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The more important point, however, is that the ICC clearly has no legitimate authority over American citizens. The US Senate has not ratified the ICC treaty, and constitutionally it cannot- because the Constitution does not permit the judicial function to be surrendered to an international body. Remember, the Constitution guarantees every American various protections- such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches- and any treaty that denies American citizens those protections by definition is unconstitutional. Furthermore, President Bush thankfully may rescind the US signature to the ICC treaty, undoing the symbolic damage done by Clinton’s acquiescence to the idea of a superior international court.
treaty
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The American people won a great victory last week in the ongoing battle to preserve our national sovereignty. On Monday, the administration formally announced President Bush’s bold decision to withdraw the United States from the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. UN bureaucrats have been working quietly for several years to create the ICC, with the ultimate goal of installing an international tribunal that claims jurisdiction over every human on the planet- and judicial supremacy over our own Supreme Court. Given the steady progress of ICC planners to date in convincing about 60 nations to ratify the treaty, the American withdrawal represents a stunning setback for those intent on establishing an international legal system that undermines our Constitution- and a rare but important triumph for American national interests.
treaty
Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003?
30 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Yet even in the midst of this Middle East turmoil, an unsettling new threat has arisen in North Korea. The authoritarian Kim Jong-il regime recently announced that it would move forward with a nuclear weapons program, poisoning its already hostile diplomatic relationship with Washington. The Koreans allegedly opened seals on thousands of irradiated fuel rods, and removed UN monitoring cameras at a nuclear reactor that was earlier shut down by treaty. Some military observers believe the North Koreans can produce four or five nuclear weapons in the next six months.
treaty
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
treaty
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Americans should seize the chance to expose the myth of so-called “international law.” Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people. Simply stated, just laws are derived from the consent of the governed, and Americans have not consented to be governed by foreign individuals or bodies. Constitutionally speaking, only Congress can craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. When the UN attempts to dictate our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws- as it already has- we need to remember that only the representative US Congress has authority to make our national laws
treaty
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Fortunately, when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared that the push toward global governance was - at least temporarily - halted.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that without the participation of the United States, their schemes are doomed to failure.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Satisfied with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in 2000 with no action.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
It seemed as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification. Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’ rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.
treaty
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 10 ... Cached
Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China - and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.
treaty
UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
17 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
American citizens abroad, of course, are subject to the laws of their host nation. At home, however, American citizens are subject only to our domestic laws. Congress, and Congress alone, has the constitutional power to craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can legally usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. Not even the wildest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress simply to abandon its lawmaking power to another body. Yet this is what UN advocates would have us believe when the UN attempts to dictate or influence our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws-- as it already has.
treaty
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional, which is to say illegal. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. When Congress in essence transfers its authority over trade matters to the WTO, it acts illegally.
treaty
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming? Clearly the Kyoto Accords, to which the United States has not agreed, will affect world trade. Will this be an open door for the WTO to act as enforcer toward the United States and other countries that refuse to sign Kyoto? Two leading UN observers, Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International and Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, have reported that the WTO is widely recognized as the enforcement tool of choice for the Kyoto treaty.
treaty
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Economist Murray Rothbard said it best: You don’t need a treaty to have free trade. Governments and quasi-government bodies like the WTO can only politicize and interfere with the natural flow of goods and services across borders. When we cede even a fraction of our sovereignty to an organization like the WTO, we can hardly hope to become more prosperous or more free.
treaty
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.
treaty
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.
treaty
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
treaty
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
treaty
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
treaty
Escalation in the Middle East
15 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran-- possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!
treaty
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico , and the prime minister of Canada , known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America .” This somewhat secretive agreement – a treaty in all but name – aims to erase the borders between the United States , Canada , and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated!
treaty
Bombed if you do...
09 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.