Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 04/15/2003 10:09:24 PM PDT by Nephi
Rep. Ron Paul has reintroduced H.R. 1146, a measure that would end U.S. involvement in the United Nations. With anti-UN sentiment growing, the time may be right to Get US out!
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), a medical doctor, represents the 14th district of Texas. He is one of the few steady voices for fiscal restraint and strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution.
Recently, Dr. Paul reintroduced in the new Congress H.R. 1146, a measure that would end U.S. involvement in the United Nations and rescind diplomatic immunity for United Nations officials. Dr. Paul was interviewed on March 27th about H.R. 1146 and the war in Iraq.
THE NEW AMERICAN: What prompted you to introduce H.R. 1146, a bill that would get the United States out of the United Nations?
Congressman Ron Paul: I introduced this legislation because I do not believe it is in our interest to be in the United Nations, principally because it undermines our national sovereignty. And I think current events verify that.
TNA: Nearly all politicians say that they support national sovereignty, but most people only have a vague idea of what national sovereignty means. What is national sovereignty?
(Excerpt) Read more at getusout.org ...
As stooges for communist front groups protest all across America, perhaps it's time that conservatives mobilize and beat them at their own game:
of the United Nations
My sentiments exactly.
If Ron Paul gets us out of the UN, does that mean he will support the next war against a terrorist-sponsoring nation?
On the whole, I'm still somewhat ashamed that Ron Paul is from Texas, but in the unlikely event he will have lead us out of the UN, he shall have thereby earned, IMO, his Congressional pension, even should he ultimately deem it unconstitutional to receive it.
It is already okay to be a Michael New fan.
If Ron Paul gets us out of the UN, does that mean he will support the next war against a terrorist-sponsoring nation?
He may or may not, but I'll bet you can count on him to submit the amendment to the resolution so that congress will have the opportunity to do their consitutional duty and vote on the declaration of war.
No need to be embarassed. Rep. Paul is just a rare breed of politician that seeks to uphold the document written by inspired, but peculiar men.
What you recall is congress delegating their constitutional powers to declare war to the president.
No, Congress specifically voted for a war on the global terrorist network. You are confused by the fact that they didn't specify a country.
I have heard libertarians gripe and say that it's not a declaration of war unless it identifies a specific nation. But this is not true anymore than the claim that it ain't a declaration of war unless it starts off by saying "Okay, folks this Resolution is the Congress acting in its Constitutional duty of declaring war."
The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly says that Congress has to specify a country. (The Constitution is not unnecessarily wordy.)
What Congress delegated to the POTUS was the authority to determine how to prosecute the war--which, of course, is not delegation anyway, since that is already the prerogative of the Executive Branch.
***
Anyway, I agree with the libertarians' complaints about a lot of things. But sometimes libertarians go way too far in their complaining. (This is why a lot of our more witty FReepers just write off libertarians as sort-of-conservative guys who want to smoke dope. In this very way, I think Ron Paul is the exemplar of both what is good about today's libertarians and what is bad about today's libertarians.)
This war we are in was necessitated by a network of terrorists in several not-necessarily-identified countries.
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.