2001 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr.
DELAY in expressing serious concern over the
subject matter of his amendment, that is, the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
