Move over Constitution, we've got U.N. charter: war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists

A renown constitutional scholar predicts a United States-led war with Iraq could result not just in the loss of Saddam Hussein's sovereignty, but that of the U.S. as well, which in turn leads to the loss of personal liberty for individual American citizens.

It's not that Herb Titus is anti-war. He just thinks President George W. Bush is going about it the wrong way. Titus sees a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease the international community by working through the diplomatic channels of the United Nations Security Council.

Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

A one time dean of Regent School of Law and 1996 vice presidential candidate on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket with Howard Phillips, Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars. He's also an author and practicing attorney specializing in constitutional litigation and strategy.

"Presidents have substituted Security Council authorization for constitutional declaration of war," Titus told WorldNetDaily.

And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.

"Article I, Section 8 is inoperative," said Titus, referring to the Constitution's mandate that the decision to go to war come from Congress: "The Congress shall have power to ... declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

"Letters of marque and reprisal" refers to limited actions of war and was often used in the late 18th century to authorize surgical attacks on lawless Muslim pirates harbored by Tunisia and Libya. The "captures" cited as the third constitutional military option before Congress refers to the capture of naval vessels.

"The declaration of war is both a legal question and a practical decision," Titus explains. "At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, two factors were relevant: 'Do you have good, legal reason?' and 'If you have legal grounds for war, is it practical to declare war?'

"While presidents have not said as a matter of law that the U.N. charter trumps the Constitution, the emphasis on the practical matter [seeking U.N. approval so that military action against Iraq isn't viewed by the international community as aggression or U.S. imperialism] reinforces the legal claim of the internationalists," Titus continued.

He concludes that Congress has failed on both counts in allowing presidents to make both the legal and practical decisions, and is complicit in the presidents' giving up American sovereignty to the U.N.

In response to the Vietnam War, it passed the War Powers Act in 1973, which requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering any military action abroad, including limited airstrikes.

At least one congressman tried to adhere to the Constitution. Last October, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, proposed a declaration of war to his colleagues. Instead, Congress passed a resolution that authorized the use of military force against Iraq, provided the international community supports it.

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations Committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul said after his proposal was voted down. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be 'frivolous.' I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"It's an undeclared, illegal war. Not only do I object to the war," Paul told WorldNetDaily, "but I object to the way the president is going about it."

The Iraq resolution, which came through the International Relations Committee and was promoted by committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., was proposed by Bush.

"Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence," Hyde said in a statement released while the committee was deliberating the resolution. "To assume that these terrorists and others will remain unarmed by Saddam is an assumption with a deadly potential. ... The president has demonstrated his determination to act to remove this threat and has asked the Congress for an authorizing resolution. ... In the name of those brave souls, both living and departed, who purchased our freedom, let us now act," he urged.

Worse than declaring nothing, Paul maintains, is that Congress transferred the authority to go to war to the president.

"We should never have one man making the decision to send young men to war 6,000 miles from our shore," Paul told WND. "We still haven't admitted to the 150,000 suffering from Gulf War Syndrome – I'm convinced as a physician there is a syndrome. We shouldn't be doing this so casually."

As WorldNetDaily reported, a group of Democratic lawmakers, soldiers and families of servicemen agree with Paul and filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming war with Iraq would be illegal and unconstitutional, and accusing lawmakers of unlawfully ceding the decision to President Bush.

"The president is not a king," the group's lead attorney, John Bonifaz, said at a news conference announcing the suit. "He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a congressional declaration of war. Congress has not declared war."

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro dismissed the suit Monday, ruling the judicial branch can only judge the war policies of the other two branches of government when they're in conflict. In this case, Congress and the president are in agreement.

"If you want constitutional government," said Titus, "don't look to the courts for your salvation. Look to yourselves and who you're electing to office."

Bush is not the first commander in chief to be sued over his military orders. A similar lawsuit was filed against President George H.W. Bush before the 1991 Gulf War by 54 members of Congress. It was denied by a federal judge in December 1990, who ruled the lawmakers did not have legal standing.

WorldNetDaily reported in 1999 that 26 congressional members filed a lawsuit against former President Clinton for violating both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by allowing U.S. forces to participate in NATO air attacks against Yugoslavia. The suit maintained that, according to the War Powers Act, Clinton must seek congressional approval for the Balkan war if he wished to pursue it beyond 60 days.

Bush and other administration officials present Iraqi disarmament as the crucial next step in the "war on terror."

In his State of the Union address, Bush cited evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody that Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

Secretary of State Colin Powell subsequently laid out the Bush administration case in detail before the Security Council and congressional panels, claiming an al-Qaida cell based in Baghdad coordinates movement of people, money and supplies to and throughout Iraq and was responsible for the ricin plot in London and other planned terrorist attacks against countries including France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.

Titus asserts officials use the word "war" as a "rhetorical device" with no more meaning than the phrase "war on drugs" or "war on poverty." He said the term is designed to illicit an emotional response to silence detractors.

If the term were taken seriously, Titus thinks Bush should have submitted his cause for war in careful and specific form to members of Congress last fall just as Powell did for members of the Security Council. He argues Congress didn't act on the basis of specific evidence and that's why the resolution authorizes the use of force but doesn't outright declare war.

While the Iraq resolution enables Bush to abide by the War Powers Act, because "authorization of military force" is not "declaration of war," Titus concurs with Paul that war on Iraq does not pass constitutional muster.

So Bush – and presidents before him – instead seeks a "higher authority," says Titus, and subscribes to the rules of international law.

The U.N. charter was signed on Jun 26, 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on Oct. 24, 1945.

Although signed as a treaty, Titus said the charter was crafted more as a constitution for world government. Its preamble reads like the Constitution, referring to "we the people" as opposed to "we the member-nation governments." It also has an amendment clause similar to Article 5 that allows amendments to the charter approved by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

Titus argues because it's a global constitution, the U.N. charter is illegitimate because it created a supranational government that derived its powers not from the consent of the governed 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.

Unlike the Constitution, the U.N. charter doesn't authorize war, only police acts to keep the peace. In fact, the charter's preamble states the main objective of the signatories was to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

This may, in part, explain the uphill battle Bush has faced in securing Security Council approval for the use of military force against Iraq.

"Police acts are to keep the peace. But there's no war in Iraq right now. We can't go there to establish peace if there's no war," he said.

Four years ago, Paul founded The Liberty Committee, an organization committed to rolling back the "socialists' authoritarian agenda" at work in the national legislative process. Sixteen of Paul's House colleagues joined a liberty caucus. Titus serves as senior legal adviser for the group.

It cites legislation that was thwarted in December 2001 that would have "accelerated the transformation of the U.S. military into the standing army of the U.N. – a long-sought goal of the world socialists."

Ironically, Hyde painted the Iraq resolution in terms of America asserting its sovereignty.

"For those convinced of Saddam’s murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe that is the wrong debate," he said in his statement last fall. "We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail."

Despite the rhetoric, Congress only equipped Bush with an authorization of military force, not a declaration of war.

The difference, say Paul and Titus, boils down to subscribing to the U.N.'s world constitution, instead of our own.

"I don't believe in resolutions that cite the U.N. as authority for our military actions," Paul said. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don't need U.N. permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the president full war-making authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our U.N. detractors."

The difference is also a question of whether the military force achieves victory, according to Paul, who maintains history bears witness to the importance of a declaration of war.

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," he said. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear.

"When you don't declare war for national security reasons, you wind up conducting war for political reasons and you don't get victory," he concluded.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote in an article this morning, its absurd the most powerful nation on Earth has to beg non-entities like Angola and Guinea for permission to defend itself in the face of Saddam Hussein. The UN Security Council's writ is not holy gospel. We should really be getting out of the UN and reasserting the sovereignty we thought we won back in 1776 when national independence was in the eye of history a pipe dream at the time.

Up late again, huh? :-)

Isn't the use of the UN now simply an extension of what began as containment of Iraq via the UN 12 years ago? Because 12 years ago, we rescued a country without being directly attacked ourselves. I see this as a special circumstance of unfinished business that began multilaterally.

I could be wrong but I think Bush would never allow the UN to stand in the way of our own security and I think he's just about to prove it. I will admit, however, that I find the polls which demonstrate the majority of US citizens wanting UN approval to be frustrating. That will quickly dissipate after the next terrorist attack on our soil, however.

It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not. Any posturing by political and ideological parties is simply that.

Perhaps they are correct. While I may be or not be, favorable to this particular viewpoint, I still cannot dismiss the possibility. Sometimes one's designs can be seen in one's actions.

The post-communist world socialist movement (Animal Farmers), including the most corrupt neo-fascists such as China, N.K., Cuba, Islamia, France, Russia, South Africa, and California are seething that GW ( aka voters persuant to our Constitutional rule of law) rejected the favored works of XXX42 Clinton(s) undermining American national sovereignty and security, such as Kyoto and NAFTA as implimented, and strategic defense technologies.

The Democrats with their UN comrades have embarked on their Long March to recapture the White House, ultimately for XX44 Hillary (before her menopause unkindly reveals her Leninist manliness), with Bill continuing as a twisted member of the UN's politburo.

Our Constitution, now lead by XY43 GW and defended by our minority patriotic citizens, stands in their way. When the fascist Democrat politburo recaptures our government's police powers, more treaties will be structured so that Americans' rights are sacrificed on the alter of "world peace".

The second American republic will be known as the Peoples'
Republic of America, with Hillary Rodham - President/General Secretary for life.

I agree with that, but by going to the UN we also gave Saddam plenty of warning, plenty of time to screw with world opinion, plenty of time to arm, move troops, and generally do things that may cost American lives. And that blood will not only be on the UN's hands, but ours, to a degree, because we set the stalling process in motion by going there in the first place.

I know, I'm being overly-pessimistic...I just hate the UN, and it will REALLY tick me off if this increases US casualties (or the casualties of our allies, but American citizens come first when you're an American).

That being said, I think you're right, and I don't think it will make military action in Iraq more costly. But it *could*, and that's what ticks me off. These folks are bartering with the lives of US citizens. That doesn't make me happy.

Authority to employ armed force is not the issue.

Only the Congress of the United States can do this:

"the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

All the resources of the country are hereby pledged...

That is what our armed forces must have when they go to war. When they do not have it, the result is disaster.

And since the only master in this house is We, the People of the united States, only Our Representatives in Congress assembled can deliver it.

Not the UN, not NATO, not the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces-only Congress.

It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Good analogy

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not.

I have to come to agree with this based on my reading and observations.

The actions of the Bush administration in its push for war have done nothing but legitimize the U.N

They have been telling us that Iraq is a threat ever since 9/11.

As a result of scaring people, they've managed to massively increase the size and power of the federal government. But all of this legislation did nothing to deal with Iraq.

Instead, nothing had been done about Iraq.

What is wrong with this picture?

The only reason I can think of is the legitimization of the UN.

They can debate all they want, Saddam Hussein is finished

war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists

We'll see after the UN waffles, and we do it anyway. Yeah, that's going to strengthen the UN.

Titus sees a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease the international community by working through the diplomatic channels of the United Nations Security Council.

This was done to help Tony Blair, not to appease the international community.

We've already said repeatedly that we don't need another resolution.

Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars.

I've heard the same thing siad about Al Franken and Michael Moore. So what.

And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.

Let the UN say that we can't go to war with Iraq, and then see what happens when we do. Remember all of those references about being 'irrelevant'.........they will be just that.

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.