US Constitution - UN Charter

Navigation

User login

Online users

GooseKaler
Logarithm
Rick

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis

US Constitution - UN Charter

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 7:59pm.

Similar to Joey (but hopefully with a better result), this thread is a spin-off from another discussion.

In the thread titled "Why Olympia?", DrewHendricks was making a point that the military conflict in Iraq was "NOT authorized by the United Nations."

I then proceeded to point out that, per the US Constitution, it would be Congress with whom the power to authorize military engagements domestic and abroad rests, not the United Nations.

The discussion then turned to the UN Charter and Senate ratification. Essentially, the basis for the UN Charter superceding the Constitution is because a Treaty "becomes effectively the law of the land."

Article VI:

The 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

This stance is correct except when a Treaty runs counter to the Constitution.

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

We then began to discuss Reid v. Covert, a decision in which the Supreme Court confirmed Article VI, stating (among other things):

The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
The rights and liberties which citizens of our country enjoy are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they have been jealously preserved from the encroachments of Government by express provisions of our written Constitution.
the United States Government, which has no power except that granted by the Constitution

The link to the majority opinion, and other sections I grabbed, are in the other thread.

I'm curious about how everyone else feels. Should the UN Charter be recognized as "supreme" to the US Constitution by Congress, the Executive and Courts?

Sadly, the Supreme Court is already heading this direction. In Roper v. Simmons, a recent decision prohibiting the execution of those under 18 in the US, the Court even went so far as to cite international standing.

Washington Post:

For the Supreme Court itself, perhaps the most significant effect of yesterday's decision is to reaffirm the role of international law in constitutional interpretation.
In saying that this strong expression of international sentiment "provide[s] respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions," Kennedy lengthened the recent string of decisions in which the court has incorporated foreign views -- and decisively rejected the arguments of those on the court, led by Scalia, who say it should consider U.S. law exclusively.
Noting that most countries have more restrictive abortion laws than the United States, Scalia accused the court of "invok[ing] alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignor[ing] it otherwise." He read his opinion from the bench, a sign of strong disapproval for the court's decision.

I think I've established enough of a jump-point.

How do YOU interpret the Constitution?

The Fire Inside's blog
Login or register to post comments

I don't think the UN charter

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 8:32pm.

I don't think the UN charter should necessarily be "supreme" to the constitution. But I think the UN charter necessitates respect, including being followed in the legal senses, by one of its principal creators, the USA.

I think all this talk of rank, and supremacy is fools gold. We would be better off talking about values, ethics and morals.

I believe that if humanity is to have a chance going into the future, our greatest asset will be our own individual conscienciousness and adherence to commonly held moral standards and ethical guidelines.

Rob Whitlock: But I think th

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 9:01pm.

Rob Whitlock: But I think the UN charter necessitates respect, including being followed in the legal senses, by one of its principal creators, the USA.

The Fire: I think any Treaty should be respected so long that it does not violate the Constitution or established law. This is where the responsibility is on the Executive, Congress, and Courts to protect citizens from the errosion of the Constitution.

If they cannot (or are unwilling to) protect the Constitution, the responsibility then falls on People to do so.

I actually had not really sat down and thought of the constitutionality of the US being in the UN since the John Birch Society had some signs in the 90s proclaiming: "Get US out of the UN!"

Okay, I am interested, though

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 9:10pm.

Okay, I am interested, though I haven't been following this discussion very closely, so I may have missed it - but, How exactly does the UN charter step on the toes of the US constitution?

Chapter VII ("ACTION WITH RES

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 9:51pm.

Chapter VII ("ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION"), Article 39:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

According to our Constitution, Congress is the body which has the power to oversee the organization of our Armed Forces and determine whether or not an entity poses a threat, not the UN Security Council.

Article 42:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

The only provision I can find which would take into account a given country having constitutional problems with these obligations is in Article 43, Number 3:

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

We come to a few problems, though. The first is that our own country skips the entire process of Congressional authority to wage warfare and has instead handed far too much power to the Executive (which was long before George Bush stepped into office) to launch into warfare.

The second problem is that the Executive has been designated by the Constitution as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, not the UN Secretary General.

Constitutionally speaking, every American soldier has to answer ultimately only to the American president. Secretary General Annan's and the Security Council's opinions are just that: opinions. They should have no real weight other than being input, not binding orders.

Chapter XIV ("THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE") is another section that's highly questionable. From Article 92:

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

Article 94, Number 1:

Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

Like I said, I haven't put too much thought recently into the issue.

Then again, rarely do you see serious conversation about the Constitution anymore.

TFI - Don't you think that

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 12:47am.

TFI - Don't you think that had we listened to the UN, we could have avoided rushing into a disastrous war or military action, such as the one in Iraq has become and Vietnam was? If so, and I'm not saying we need to change the constitution, because I believe it's already supported in Article VI, but shouldn't the UN, which represents all the people of the world, be given the option to not allow miltary action when they see another way? Wouldn't the world benefit from another set of checks and balances? If every signer of the charter agreed to that, and committed to sustaining it, I think terrorism would not be such a big threat. I think all of the nations of the world need to work together, from what I've seen thus far, the divide and conquer, military-industrial, preemptive warfare culture is destroying our planet, and us with it.

I believe it is also a step toward creating worldwide democracy.

I think if we would exercise

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 1:28am.

I think if we would exercise the avenues put in place by the Constitution we wouldn't rush into these military engagements and wouldn't end up with troops in every corner of the globe, everywhere from Haiti to Iraq and anything inbetween.

The other benefit is that by pronouncing a constitutional Declaration of War there is an actual enemy. You think Congress is going to declare a "War on Terrorism?" Not a chance. The declaration would be aimed at a specific country with a specific goal (which should be unconditional surrender).

Another benefit is that the country will work toward that goal. Right now people are confused about why we're in Iraq, so it's hard to people to rally around the idea of the American War Machine.

If there is a clear enemy and a clear goal, though, the country would be far more inclined to devoting resources in order to defeat the established enemy and meet the stated objectives.

It's a lot easier for people to push for a win when they know why they're fighting.

The UN should be allowed to give their opinion but they shouldn't be allowed to override the mechanisms we have in place. If Congress were to say we're at war with a country, by God, we're at war with that country.

Rob Richards: I believe it is also a step toward creating a worldwide democracy.

The Fire: George Bush? Is that you?

I'm kidding, but the push for a global democracy (since we're discussing the UN I assume you mean a global government, while Bush and Europe are more about spreading democracy to individual countries) is one reason why we ended up in Vietnam and Iraq (and yes, to a certain extent Iraq is an attempt to inject a democratic government other than Israel into the region).

I believe it is far better for the health of our government and, ultimately our people, to refrain from becoming too involved with domestic politics in foreign countries. It doesn't matter if it's done with a blue helmet or a green one.

An isolationist at heart, eh?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 1:48am.

An isolationist at heart, eh?

I wish I could agree with you

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 2:12am.

I wish I could agree with your statement. At heart, though, I want to see everyone enjoy the same standard of living and protection from government which we enjoy, even if it meant trying (with mixed success) to bring it to foreign people.

I would say an isolationist at head.

This thread sets its premise

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 11:14am.

This thread sets its premise on the idea that I was stating that the UN orders US troops into battle, and has authority over the US armed forces. This is incorrect - I did not intend to argue that at all.

What I was actually arguing is that aggressive war is illegal - per the UN charter which clearly states that it is illegal, and the Nuremburg trials, etc. I was arguing that the VietNam war was not a defensive war by the US, but a terrorist war of aggression - because it was illegal, unsanctioned by the only body we've created to decide whether a given war is legal.

You didn't mention Kosovo at

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 2:16pm.

You didn't mention Kosovo at all. Do you view this conflict as illegal, too?

Adhering to the doctrine that the only legal conflict are those sanctioned by "the only body we've created to decide whether a given war is legal," I assume you were also against US troops operating in Kosovo?

I did march against that war,

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 3:02pm.

I did march against that war, and I did notice that during the NATO air war, a civilian passenger train was deliberately hit by DU ammunition. General Tommy Franks, the NATO commnder of that theatre, who later campaigned for the Democrats' Presidential nomination, was responsible for that atrocity.

If you think I'm some kind of hypocritical Democrat, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a Green.

The troops, by the way, are still ensconced at Camp Bondsteel and other bases we set up in the aftermath of that Civil War. Funny, how we came in on the side of the Croats, whose fighters wear swastikas as often as eagles...

You have no idea how happy I

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 3:27pm.

You have no idea how happy I am to read your post.

I've found a number of people who proclaim to be against the conflict in Iraq based on international consensus but, when Kosovo is introduced into the discussion, try to find wiggle room.

Are you a Constitutionalist w

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 03/02/2006 - 11:16am.

Are you a Constitutionalist who is also opposed to empire, or do you believe the US is not an empire?

Yes, I would say we are.The q

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 03/02/2006 - 1:31pm.

Yes, I would say we are.

The question is: What do we do now that we fully realize it?

Can we go back to the idea of a Republic? Or do we just embrace what we are and try to make the best of it?

Before, had I been asked this same question, I would have gone with the latter, saying we need to make the most out of this opportunity.

Now I think the idea of an empire is extremely dangerous not because of the distance you have to travel from the original foundation but also because it could very well threaten the existence of our country.

If you're willing to accept t

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 03/10/2006 - 10:45am.

If you're willing to accept that the United States is an Empire, then you already have no country. The nature of this empire is that it is financial, not political. There is no loyalty to country on the part of the leaders of this empire, evidence the Dubai Ports scandal. The domestic political monologue is intensely nationalistic, but the actual policies of the oligarchs are anything but nationalistic.

It is odd to me that the Left discovered globalization as an issue, but never made much common ground with the constitutionalists who also warned that there would be a "giant sucking sound" if NAFTA was passed. It was, and there was, and it sucked.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: