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.
exodus - "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."**********************
elfman2 - 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…
That statement doesn't bode well for your understanding of the Constitution.
I didn't say that a Grand Jury should decide the Constitutionality of law. I said that a Grand Jury should decide what cases have merit; which cases should be heard in a court of law.
A judge's duty is to preside over the Court, not to decide which case is allowed into his courtroom. That decision is the responsibility of a Grand Jury.
**********************
See Marbury v. Madison
Yes, I've read the summary of Marbury v. Madison before, thank you, Marianne. I believe this to to be one of the earliest acts of "legislation from the bench." Before Marshal decided that he could rule on the Constitutionality of a law, the power didn't belong to the Supreme Court. His decision "set a precedent," and the newly claimed power, though never assigned to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution, has been accepted as the exclusive province of the Supreme Court ever since.
From the link -
"...In 1801, having lost the recent Congressional and Presidential elections, the Federalists in Congress passed a judiciary act which created a number of new federal judgeships. Before leaving office President John Adams took the opportunity thus created to appoint a number of Federalists to these newly created positions. At the same time he appointed Secretary of State John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States.
One of Marshall's last tasks as Secretary was to deliver a warrant to one William Marbury who had been appointed as a judge in the District of Columbia, which through oversight he failed to do. When Jefferson arrived in the White House, being skeptical of the power of judges to begin with and disturbed by all the new Federalist judges just appointed ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold warrants not yet given.
Under a clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury sued for his warrant in the Supreme Court. Thus Marshall was faced with a difficult decision-if he ordered the warrant delivered, and Jefferson (through Madison) refused, there was little the Court could do. Its power would be thus weakened, which would have pleased Jefferson.
Instead, Marshall found that portion of the Judiciary Act under which Marbury was acting to be unconstitutional, thus claiming for the court the right of "judicial review,"-the power of the court to rule laws passed by Congress unconstitutional, when they arrived in the Court as the result of a suit..."
Fortunately you are wrong. That said, President Bush the elder did not invoke the United Nations as the new world order. It was a stupid remark and should have never been uttered...everyone seems to forget that Hitler had a thing about new world order as well. It was equally as dumb a remark as that by Henry Kissinger and his 'defining moment' and 'fundamental change' hogwash.
Now, however, President Bush the younger is quite correct that this is a new game and the old rules don't apply and even without the threat of nuclear annihilation the CIC must have the ability to order retaliation against terrorists attacks without pussy footing around with congressional poohbahs and poopers.
Now, with that said, are you aware of how many Native Americans were slaughtered without a declaration of war by Congress? Do you know under what authority Colonel Custer galloped into a trap?
Are you aware that United Fruit declared war more often than Congress?
CIC means taking charge and kicking ass. President Bush is doing just that...at great risk to his own popularity and safety...God bless him and all who serve.
**********************
I admire Ron Paul for his willingness to think things through in his own effective way. I believe he is off the mark here, however. 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.
Officially, we are going to war on behalf of the United Nations. The President said so, and so does the Congressional "Authorization of Force" that so many wrongly equate with a declaration of war.
Ron Paul is not 'off the mark." As a matter of law, Congress decides war, not the President, and certainly not the President in the name of the United Nations. Bush is President of the United States. He should not give United Nation interests as his official reason for going to war.
Just accepting that Saddam is as dangerous as you say, why not declare war legally? We won't be losing the element of surprise. Why not follow the law? It would remove the most effective argument those "dirty liberals" are using to protect the peace-loving tyrant of Iraq.
**********************
President Bush the elder did not invoke the United Nations as the "new world order. "
I never said that Bush Sr. named the United Nations as the leader of the New World Order.
I do remember listening to his speech, and I got the impression that he was talking about a world government, not a hippy kind of 'happy dreams."
I can't quote the speach, it was a long time ago, but that was my impression at the time.
**********************
Now, however, President Bush the younger is quite correct that this is a new game and the old rules don't apply and even without the threat of nuclear annihilation the CIC must have the ability to order retaliation against terrorists attacks without pussy footing around with congressional poohbahs and poopers.
I would agree with you in the case of an emergency. That isn't the case with Bush's war with Iraq. There's no emergency at all.
We've had plenty of time to think about this war, whether it's a good idea or not. If it's a good idea, declare war. If not, don't. Either way, the decision is to be made in Congress, not in the Executive Branch.
Now, with that said, are you aware of how many Native Americans were slaughtered without a declaration of war by Congress? Do you know under what authority Colonel Custer galloped into a trap?**********************
Past violations of law do not excuse present violations.
(Commander in Chief) means taking charge and kicking ass. President Bush is doing just that**********************
The title of "Commander in Chief" does not confer immunity from the requirements of law.
President Bush does not have legal authority to decide war, and Congress can't legally delegate it's responsibility to decide war.
A three day waiting period or conceal weapons permit requirements may be bad law, a stretch of the text of the Constitution and a break with of the intent of the Founders, but they are not illegal. (Congressional authorization for the use of force is none of that.)
And like it our not, courts refusing to oppose the more limited restraints on gun ownership are giving them their stamp of approval. I suspect unique challenges are dismissed with references to previous rulings, and redundant ones are rejected without comment.
**********************
exodus - I believe this to to be one of the earliest acts of "legislation from the bench."
Marianne - I agree with you; however, the precedent was set and we have been saddled with the results of this decision ever since.
I'm glad you agree; I believe that Marshall's usurpation of power in Marbury v. Madison set the stage for most other judicial problems we face today.
I do not accept precedence as a valid consideration of law, but that's another issue. :)
As long as you’re certain that the Constitution is "explicit on every issue", could you show me where that’s stated as well?
It is one of the most annoying aspects of trying to discuss political reality with libertarians.
It doesn't matter that you are usually wrong. You are always wrong and your only purpose is to be argumentative and seek notice.
Please do not ping me to any more of your nonsense; go troll your pals at lp.
Not true, Jefferson, and Madison after him, sent the US Navy to take care of some other Arab Muslims, known as the Barbary Pirates or sometimes the Barbary Corsairs, with a Congressional Declaration of War. From that incident comes the "to the shores of Tripoli", portion of the Marine Corps Hymn. This time, as last time, the President has a Congressional authorization for the use of force. That's enough to satisfy the Constitutional requirements. The Constiution gives Congress the power to declare war, it is true, but it also makes the President Commander in Chief. Nowhere does it require a Declaration of War in order for the President to exercise his powers as Comander in Chief.
Or perhaps Congressman Paul thinks that Jefferson and Madison, the latter having written much of the Constitution, did not understand the Constitution?
Does anyone know the last time any country made a formal declaration of war against another?
**********************
The Constitution could not be "explicit on every issue" unless it were very long. It’s a framework, leaving out details of the implementation.
The Constitution is not explicit on every issue, but it is explicit regarding every governmental power. The explicit delegation of governmental power is the framework you name. The Constitution doesn't make any specific law, beyond chosing officers; however, it leaves no question as to who has responsibility for what powers..
The Executive does not have the power to decide war. That is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch.
It is one of the most annoying aspects of trying to discuss political reality with libertarians.
It doesn't matter that you are usually wrong. You are always wrong and your only purpose is to be argumentative and seek notice.
Please do not ping me to any more of your nonsense; go troll your pals at lp.
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.