Skip to comments.If Lincoln was correct...
Posted on 03/11/2003 2:10:43 PM PST by A2J
If Lincoln Was Correct... Then MUST the U.S. Abide By United Nations Demands?
Recently, while listening to a conservative radio talk show, the host mentioned that someone (I failed to get the name) had either written a book or made a statement to the effect that the United States was obliged to follow all of the mandates of the United Nations, primarily because the U.S. entered into a pact or contract with member nations to do so. This contention intrigued me as to the parallels it has regarding whether Lincoln was indeed right when he claimed that the South illegally seceded from the Union, thus igniting his attempt to restore the Union.
Indeed, there are many here on FR that contend that the sovereignty of the Southern states, as well as all states, became subservient to the conditions of the Constitution upon their ratification of it. If true, if the Southern states abdicated, or at least greatly restricted, their sovereignty upon entry into the Union, then does it not portend that the United States has also abdicated or greatly restricted its sovereignty upon its entry into the United Nations, NATO and other pacts that demand compliance with its resolutions? For example, if the UN would approve of a resolution that mandated that the U.S. withdraw from specific areas of the world, isnt the U.S. required to do so because of its membership in the UN?
Although I am an avid, pro-Southern opponent of Lincoln and his policies, I would appreciate any comments regarding whether the U.S. is obligated by the mandates of the UN and/or any other organization of which it is a member nation. I would also like to hear the reasoning behind the answers whether they are to the affirmative or negative to the question. In addition, please consider the question as to whether the U.S. has the right to withdraw from said organizations and why?
Let us debate!
Also please ping other Southerners for theirs as well.
What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.--Letter to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb. 1830
Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it. [See, in Mr. Jefferson's volumes, his letters to J. M. Mr. Monroe & Col. Carrington]
The United Nations, so far as I know, is a league. I think it is fair to say that the US should satisfy whatever obligations it has agreed to. The states of the Union have even stronger obligations, as I think Mr. Madison clearly pointed out.
This is not intended to "bash Lincoln," but to substantiate the differences, if any, between a pact that a state enters into versus one a nation enters into.
Don't worry, we'll try to leave your god alone in this one.
By law, none necessarily. However, the same could be said of the union over the states. The Constitution outlined certain specific powers that the federal government had, however over time through misreadings and wishful revision the federal government came to have much more power than it was originally intended. lincoln used those misinterpreted powers like an iron fist in '61. Are you strong enough in your convictions of the 'voluntary' aspect of the UN to state without a doubt that the UN hasn't intruded on the sovereignty of these United States much as the tyrant did to the states in '61?
The US Constitution, however, in the Supremacy Clause, clearly says that state law must conform with the Constitution and the President has a sworn duty to see that the laws are fatefully enforced and applied equally in every jurisdiction. .
Who ever you heard say otherwise has no damn idea what he is talking about.
BTW. In the 60+ years the UN has been around there have been somewhere around 60 wars. On only three occasions has the UN authorized use of force and those three were all requested by the United States --- Korea in 1950, Gulf I in 1990, and Gulf II with resolution 1444 in November 2002. Russia, China, France and other nations have had wars that were either outside of UN approval or specifically condemned by the UN. No one but the US has ever even asked for UN permission. What the UN said never bothered France or Russia one bit when they were involved in following their self-interests. What the UN says will not bother us in the least as we move in to finally crush Saddam.
The Lincoln haters are like this guy. There is no stretch too long for them.
I must have missed the part which says that billbears determines what constitutes misreadings and wishful revisions.
Are you strong enough in your convictions of the 'voluntary' aspect of the UN to state without a doubt that the UN hasn't intruded on the sovereignty of these United States much as the tyrant did to the states in '61?
Figures you would. It says it in the 10th Amendment. You know that sticky Amendment that states powers not explicitly enumerated in the aforesaid document belong to the states? Revisionism from judicial review have treated that Amendment like a piece of toilet paper from 1803 on
If the US were to secede from the UN, could the other nations label us a "rouge" nation much as the Southern states were labeled by the unionists? Absolutely.
Could the other nations overtly, or through subterfuge, engage the US in conflict to bring it back into the fold? Absolutely.
If successful, could the other nations rewrite our Constitution and impose a government to reduce our sovereignty to international law and organizations? Absolutely.
And would the historians of the World Federation acclaim the motives and justify the outcomes of such an act? Absolutely.
Does it matter to me whether the confederate states had a right to secede? No.
Would I have forced the confederate states back into the union? Yes.
Has federalism over confederacy swung power from where it was originally held between 1777/1781 (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) to 1787/1789 (Constitution of The United States) through the Civil War and suceeding world wars? Absolutely.
Personally, I'd like to see the US bring rouge nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea into the fold, rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we may need to start with France, Germany and Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.