Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus
President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.
Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!
As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.
But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.
The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.
When someone explicitly shouts that something "is illegal!" when it has been repeatedly judged legal? Yes. And I also refer to why it should be legal, but you didn’t notice that. Do you always jump both feet into the middle of an argument without reading back through the thread, even one step?
If you accept his premises then it is all very logical, as usual. But he ignores the prevailing motivation for all of this activity, i.e. Saddam Hussein means to be the power broker in the Middle Eastern part of the world through force. He has shown no compunction about punishing his own countrymen who oppose him. He disregards the murderous acts of his sons who emulate him. It is even likely that he will unleash biological and chemical agents on his own turf, to the detriment of his own people. Ron seems to ignore all of these factors in this article.
exodus - "Show me the section of our Constitution that gives the President the power go to war on a whelm, and I'll stop bringing questions of law to the subject of war.**********************
elfman2 - Here are a couple of posts by people more knowledgeable than myself in "declaration of war" and "authorization of force" issues:
I believe that those people don't know any more than I do about law.
A lawful requirement is supposed to be met. That's why it's labeled as a requirement.
Thanks for looking that up, but your links do not answer my request.
I don’t consider Paul’s arguments persuasive in the least. He ignores evidence that works against him, repeats defeated platitudes and is playing to a cult like fringe following. I posted links to 2 discussions and a web site regarding why congressional authorization is constitutionally consistent. I gave my own reasons, and noone has challenged them. I could go on and debate it in a rational way, but when someone simply shots that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them.
But if you ignore all that, Row v. Wade and any repeated pattern of court decisions are analogous.
**********************Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Block War Against Iraq
by Ralph Ranalli
Calling the potential war with Iraq a political rather than a legal issue, a federal judge in Boston refused yesterday to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the Bush administration from attacking without a declaration of war from Congress.
A group of unnamed military personnel, along with relatives of people in the armed forces and six members of the US House of Representatives, had filed suit, claiming that Congress had abdicated its war powers to the executive branch when it passed a resolution backing military action in Iraq last October.
US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro agreed with Justice Department lawyers who argued that the judiciary has no power to intervene in matters of foreign policy except in cases where Congress and the president are strongly and clearly in conflict. The judge denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and ordered their lawsuit dismissed. '
'The issues raised in this case are political questions beyond the authority of this court to resolve,'' Tauro said at a hearing.
Tauro said he could not tackle the issue of the constitutionality of the October resolution because Congress had ''clearly . . . not acted to bind the president from engaging in a war on Iraq'' and was, therefore, not in direct conflict with the executive branch. John Bonifaz, a Boston lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, called Tauro's decision ''wrong'' and vowed an immediate appeal. Bonifaz said Congress created a dangerous situation by investing all the power to wage war with one man, President Bush. Plaintiff Charles Richardson of Jamaica Plain, whose son, Joseph, is a US Marine assigned to the American forces massing in the Persian Gulf, said he was disappointed by Tauro's decision.
''It would have taken a strong judge to rule on the merits of this case,'' said the elder Richardson. Justice Department lawyers read a statement from Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. ''As the court held, Congress and the president are speaking with one voice in deciding that force may be necessary to compel Iraq to end its . . . weapons programs, to end its support of international terrorism, and to comply with the UN's resolutions,'' the statement read.
Thanks for the news story, jwalsh07, but that is not a ruling.
Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue.
If this is your only example, the law has not been changed, and the requirements of the Constitution still must be met.
I presume you’re not referring to the court summaries in which suits against presidential use of force with only congressional authorization were dismissed.
I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.
**********************
exodus - Past violations of law do not excuse present violators.
Blood of Tyrants - No, but it does set precedence.
Which is why I have a big problem with precedence being used as a yardstick.
It seems that judges can pick and chose which case is worthy of being looked upon as a precedence. That's wrong. Each case should be ruled upon individually.
**********************
I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.
A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge.
I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated.
exodus - I believe that those people don't know any more than I do about law. A lawful requirement is supposed to be met. That's why it's labeled as a requirement. Thanks for looking that up, but your links do not answer my request.**********************
elfman2 - I presume you’re not referring to the court summaries in which suits against presidential use of force with only congressional authorization were dismissed.
You said that this case had been ruled on, that Bush has a judicial ruling in his favor, that the court decided that Bush has the authority to go to war on only his own decision.
You are giving me generic opinions, not specific opinions. I don't believe the courts have ruled on this case, and so far your claim that they did has not been substantiated..
Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts. I don’t think it establishes Grand Juries as arbitrators on constitutionality as you claim. Yes, you are one man, but I can’t take you seriously any longer. Best regards…
Mmmike - "IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. "**********************
elfman2 - "...but when someone simply shouts that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them."
You think that the Constitution isn't explicit? My reading of the document resulted in a different opinion. The Constitution if very explicit on every issue. What would be the point of basing an entire system of law on one document, if that document only loosely related to the exercise of law?
Try one "reasoned" argument on me. Give me one example of governmental power that is not explicitly assigned by the Constitution.
**********************
Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts.
Not true, elfman2.
Here's a glaring example to disputes your statement; the National government daily infringes our right to own and carry weapons. There has not been one case taken to decide the Constitutionality of our national gun laws.
No judge will not accept any serious challenge to our national government. Judges are politicians. Judges are members of our government, just like any other government worker. Their interests lie with the people who sign their paychecks, not with us. Unless jurors stop taking their direction from judges, our slide into totalitarianism will continue.
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.