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, isn’t 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!
LOL!! What absolute arrogance. Could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution of these United States where it's our responsibility, even our right, to bring other nations 'back into the fold' as you say? Are they not allowed to practice their national sovereignty either? Granted North Korea is a viable and direct threat to these United States but none of the other countries, except maybe for Russia, have the capability to attack our continental borders. But you've all the sudden decided to bring these people 'back into the fold'. And which 'fold' is that, praytell? The folds of democracy, the folds of civilized thought, how about the folds of the sphere of American Empire influence? That's it isn't it? How dare these nations have any interests in mind other than what Washington DC wants them to have, is that it?
Wait a minute, let me guess. I expect you're going to say something to the effect of 'it's not Constitutional, but it's the right thing to do' drivel. Yep, that's Constitutional < /sarcasm>
I'm not sure how the sole remaining super-power exercises a foreign policy without being a hegemon subject to criticism of arrogance.
Could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution of these United States where it's our responsibility, even our right, to bring other nations 'back into the fold' as you say?
The Constitution gives the Congress and President wide latitude to deal with other nations in:
Article I, Section 8 Article II, Section 2Turning the question around, could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution the Congress or President would be prohibited from such actions?
Granted North Korea is a viable and direct threat to these United States but none of the other countries, except maybe for Russia, have the capability to attack our continental borders.
Uhh, North Korea is the only threat? Well, maybe Russia too? And France's nuclear arsenal? Iraq and Iran, no? I do agree, Germany is pretty harmless internationally.
How dare these nations have any interests in mind other than what Washington DC wants them to have, is that it?
It's been my experience that the US doesn't care about the interests of other countries unless they directly interfere with our own, or by placating theirs, they enable us to achieve ours.
I expect you're going to say something to the effect of 'it's not Constitutional, but it's the right thing to do' drivel.
Nope, I'm a realist, not an idealists dreaming of utopia or isolationism.
The 10th Amendment says that powers not reserved to the United States nor prevented by the Consitution are reserved to the states and their people. I believe that the power to make and change the status of a state is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution. And that the power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states is impacted is a power prevented the states. That nasty old Constitution getting in the way again. Maybe thats why the confederate president ignored it as he pleased.
So by that logic, because these United States joined a voluntary union in the UN, which does not have much more in the way of guaranteeing a separate state's sovereignty than the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, these US must abide by the ruling of the UN. Therefore, they not only have to face the issue of the Constitution and defining whether or not Iraq as a nation is a clear and present danger against the borders, they now must convince the majority of the UN and abide by their decision. Now while I do not believe these US must abide by any decision of the UN, your logic says they must. Both the UN and these US are unions entered voluntarily. Neither stipulates a way that a nation or state can leave voluntarily. How is one different from the other? Unless you can prove otherwise I don't remember seeing a document that stated specifically the states gave up their rights. Rather the 10th protected them (at least until abe came along). Heck, at least the Constitution has that. Apparently once you join the UN you can't leave!!
I believe that the power to make and change the status of a state is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
Well that's fine if you believe that, but precedence as shown through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as well as the stipulations laid out by New York and Rhode Island prove that point otherwise. If the Founders as a whole had agreed that once a state joined this voluntary union that gave up their right of deciding their own course, then why did they accept such stipulations for some states that fly in the face of your argument?
Oh crap, billbears. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions. The Constitution states how a state is admitted and by implication how it can leave.
By implication? Pray, where does it say by implication?!? What the Constitution says is
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Is the power of secession or directions for leaving the union somewhere in the document I missed? No? Then it falls under the 10th as a power not delegated to the federal government. Look at it this way. I enter into a contract with you, but send you back the contract with certain changes that I deem necessary, and you, by your silence, accept those changes. We for some reason have to go in front of a court. Any court in the land that follows common law is going to side with me on a judgement because you did not voice an objection to the changed agreement.
This is the same situation. New York, Kentucky, and Rhode Island sent back a changed agreement. The Southern states recognized that change, and of course after watching their northern brethren threaten secession time and time again since the inception of the document, decided to themselves secede. It was only in '69 after that infamous politicized decision that secession was declared illegal. Interesting that it took eight years. You would have thought that during the four years of the war that the government of these United States would have brought something to trial to have secession declared illegal. Ah, but Sal fixed that one for them didn't he? Of course to cover his own tail as well
So the question becomes one of what is our arrangement under the UN Charter, is it a treaty or something else, and whether or not the Constitution protects us from anything other wise in the arrangement. If we do not like the answers to those questions, then other questions are raised, such as do our complaints rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence such that we are "impelled" to separation.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
From the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:
From the Articles of Confederation:Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress
assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our
Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventyseven, and in the Second
Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of
Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and
Georgia in the Words following, viz.
From the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of
the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by
this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this
confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the
Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time
hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed
to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed
by the Legislatures of every State.
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority
aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as
articles of compact, between the original States and the people and
States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable,
unless by common consent, to wit:
A cursory consideration indicates that the Founders intended a perpetual union unless there was common consent to separate or a complaint rising to the level of the Decleration of Independance.
The Constitution of the United States does not appear to have changed this. The Constitution of the United States merely sets up a new form of government for the States previously joined in perpetual union. They could have set up a Constitutional Monarchy, and it would have been the same States joined in perpetual union.
Funny then isn't it that they didn't put the statement 'perpetual union' in the document? And the facts that the document was signed only with provisions in certain states to maintain their sovereignty and leave when they (not Congress) chose. Never mind that the d#mn yankees had been suggesting secession for themselves since 1803
They could have set up a Constitutional Monarchy, and it would have been the same States joined in perpetual union.
And that's exactly what Hamilton and his ilk wanted, as evidenced by his statements at the Constitutional Convention. That along with a national bank (lincoln), one money standard (lincoln and his worthless greenback scam), federal taxation (lincoln), strong centralized government (lincoln). Hmmm, looks like the Federalist trash got everything he wanted and more
That would have been simpler. But...
From the Preamble:
Article 1, Section 1:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article IV, Section 3:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within
this Union...
Article IV, Section 4:New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union;
The existence of the Union seems to have been assumed, perhaps as so obvious that it did not need elaboration. That would make sense if they had established it as a perpetual Union. Would you and your spouse restate your marriage vows everytime you changed the arrangement between the two of you? And they certainly didn't feel the need to elaborate on other things that would have been obvious to them: Republican Form of Government, Representative, Senator, Department, Office.The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a Republican Form of Government,
And the facts that the document was signed only with provisions in certain states to maintain their sovereignty and leave when they (not Congress) chose.
The states should maintain some sovereignty, and willingly give up some as they enter into an arrangement with others. As a matter of fact, they should maintain more sovereignty than they do. (I am not so sure direct election of Senators was a good idea. The Senators were to represent the States, after all.) And there was no point in trying to enforce the Union if no State had actually left. But when a state left, if at all, it could not be only by its own chooseing. The other States, not the Congress, would have a say. When one party to an agreement decides to break the agreement, other parties have a right to hold the first party to the agreement, or extract satisfaction. If they decide not too, that's there decision, not the decision of the party that breaks the agreement. And of course that would not hold true if a State's complaints rose to the level of the Declaration of Indpendence.
Never mind that the d#mn yankees had been suggesting secession for themselves since 1803
Like I said above. And that doesn't make it right. Maybe the South kept it's honor longer than the North. (I already know you'd strike the 'maybe.")
I've got people in Eastern North Carolina. And I'm pretty sure I had people on both sides of The War.
There are some elsewhere in the world who believe it to be so. One of them named Kofi Annan recently said that the UN Charter prevented the US from going to war in Iraq, indicating this very same belief.
It is interesting that your primary piece of evidence for that assertion is the Articles of Confederation clause pertaining to its applicability:
"And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual"
Evidently this was not to be so as those articles of "perpetual" unionism were ditched half a decade later and replaced by the Constitution. By contrast, evidence does exist to suggest that the founders were tolerant of a separation of the union including one based upon the desires of the separating region. Jefferson wrote of this after the acquisition of the Louisiana territories:
"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson, August 12, 1803
It is also a matter of fact that the states of Virginia and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution itself with clauses reserving the right to withdraw from it. It stands to reason that, if the founders were in consensus upon a perpetual union, they would not have, in at least two cases, adopted clauses to permit that union to be withdrawn from by a state.
What the Constitution also says, billbears, is that a state can only be admitted to the Union on the majority vote of Congress. States cannot combine without congressional approval or split up without congressional approval or change their borders one fraction of an inch without congressional approval. Obviously the power to determine the status of a state was a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
Considering that fact that slavery and other atrocities (genocide) have occured and are occuring in/by nations that are members of the UN (Sudan, for one), how can there not be a correlation between the reasons for the Civil War and the right of the U.S. to secede from the UN?
You need to work on your comprehension, sir.
Is your post a very good one? Absolutely.
(Although I disagree about forcing the Confederacy back into the Union.)
Little backward goat hearders and religious nuts in Afghanistan sure were never a threat to attack us either. 
Wake up and smell the rubble Bill. Damn near anyone can strike us at damn near any time they want. Big oceans are no defense anymore and the attackers don't need tanks, ships, or ICBMs to put a big hurt on us.
I agree wholeheartedly. They are. However if we are to begin attacking every nation out there that supports sociopaths fiscally or otherwise, these United States are going to be at war for a long time. By the standards set forth in the writing and intent of the Founders, the only nation that is a viable and direct threat currently is North Korea
We will be at war for a long time. We can pretend otherwise, but the sociopaths will continue to attack us on their schedule --- unless we get them and their masters first.
It's ugly, but it is a fact.
Can you point me to that clause in the Constitution that says only countries with the ability to launch nuclear missles at the United States qualify as enemies?
Can you point to me that clause in the Constitution that says countries with fourth rate armies that are only a direct threat to their neighbors which are all thousands of miles away qualifies in any way as an enemy of these United States? And please none of that 'national interest' malarkey. By that argument we should have probably bombed half of Eastern Europe anytime between 1948-1985
Remember this? 
And please none of that 'national interest' malarkey. By that argument we should have probably bombed half of Eastern Europe anytime between 1948-1985
I remember 1 Million US troops with a full complment of Nuclear and Conventional weapons sitting outside the Iron Curtain ready to turn any and every thing on the other side to dust if need be. National interest is far more than just protecting our borders. Even your hero Jefferson understood that when he attacked a fourth rate North African "power" which presented no threat whatsoever to the US mainland --- without a congressional declaration of war I might add. He did the exact right thing while the European powers all looked on in amazement at our "arrogance".
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.