|
2000 Ron Paul Chapter 77
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
... Cached
Contents Congressional Record (Page H7697) Cached
September 18, 2000
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
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.
2000 Ron Paul 77:2
On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was ratified, the
President of the United States would act independently of Congress
pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs
of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a
major role of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy
implicated the power to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to
Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
2000 Ron Paul 77:3
At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America’s participation in the
United Nations. But in the enactment of the United Nations’
participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several
rules by which America’s participation would be governed. Among those
rules was the requirement that before the President of the United
States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United
Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific
approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of
readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and
assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the
United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security.
2000 Ron Paul 77:4
Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of
presidential foreign policy initiatives, in cooperation with the United
Nations, has been more theoretical than real. Presidents from Truman to
the current President have again and again presented Congress with
already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress’s hand to support
United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation’s
servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking
congressional approval of the use of the United States Armed Forces in
service of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have
used the United Nations Security Council as a substitute for
congressional authorization of the deployment of United States Armed
Forces in that service.
2000 Ron Paul 77:5
This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been
limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using
the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of
international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of
international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and
human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives
of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation
of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil
order.
2000 Ron Paul 77:6
As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although the U.N.
charter specifies that none of its provisions ‘shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any State,’ nothing has ever been found so
‘essentially domestic’ as to exclude U.N. intrusions.
2000 Ron Paul 77:7
The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides unmistakable
evidence of the universality of the United Nations’ jurisdictional
claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national
borders, the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the
imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by
international agencies and tribunals. In a special contribution
endorsing this call for the globalization of domestic policymaking,
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, ‘Above all, we have
committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall have his or
her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the
charter of the United Nations. The United Nations’ achievements in the
area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal
acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of
Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international
norm,’ and this is Annan’s words, ‘that must and will take precedence
over concerns of State sovereignty.’
2000 Ron Paul 77:8
Although such a wholesale transfer of United States sovereignty to the United Nations
as envisioned by Secretary General Annan has not yet come to pass, it
will, unless Congress takes action.
2000 Ron Paul 77:9
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act is my answer to this problem.
2000 Ron Paul 77:10
To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging
the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of
assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby
cutting off the United Nations’ major source of funds. America’s
problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such
reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the
sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the
United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible
international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United
Nation’s Charter which — from the beginning — was a threat to sovereignty
protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not,
however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its
nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never ‘made
under the Authority of the U.S.,’ as required by Article VI.
2000 Ron Paul 77:11
H.R. 1146 — The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued
abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier
unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations
by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the
U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our
first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to
‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
world,’ lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by
endless and overriding international commitments.
An excerpt from Herbert
W. Titus’
Constitutional Analysis of the United Nations
2000 Ron Paul 77:12
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its
affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to read carefully
Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations of which I have
provided this excerpt:
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.
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.
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
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.
2000 Ron Paul 77:17
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity.
Sources of Our Liberties 1-10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation:
1978) As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:
2000 Ron Paul 77:18
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever
all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and
their heirs from us and our heirs.
2000 Ron Paul 77:19
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent
‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be
construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such
a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the
nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.
2000 Ron Paul 77:20
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of
constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution,
obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations,
must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter,
ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the
sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The
Founders’ Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ.
Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the
United States of America begins with ‘We the People of the United
States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions
composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that
purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA
Foundation, Chicago: 1978)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2000 Ron Paul 77:27
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United
Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order
capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations,
but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those
nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human
Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made
this claim crystal clear:
2000 Ron Paul 77:28
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations
exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right
to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human
rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report
2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
2000 Ron Paul 77:29
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s
proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and
fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of
the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United
Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . .
. to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained,
and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger
freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found
in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:
‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the
Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’
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.
| |
