From: mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason)
Subject: Re: UN Treaty
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:19:57 GMT

Leah.Wesolowski@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leah Wesolowski) writes:
> 
> LW >that comment. Are you aware that our association
> LW >with the UN in that manner is COMPLETELY UN CONSTITUTIONAL?
> 
> >JB > No I am not aware nor do I believe that our
> >JB > association with the UN is unconstitutional.
> 
> EGADS!!! Upon re-reading the articles of the constitution and the 
> UN Treaty I must tell you that not only are you right; but horribly 
> so. Let me show you why. Please indulge me.
>
> Article VI Section II (the United States Constitution)..."This 
> 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, 
> anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary 
> not withstanding."
>
> [....info about signing UN treaty deleted....]
>
> ...we are bound 
> to the UN via the signing of the Treaty over and above the United 
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> States Constitution. Read on.

A treaty which is made under the authority of the Constitution does
not "override" the Constitution; refer to your own citation of the
Constitution above.


>     In 1950 the General Assembly met and adopted what they named the 
> "Uniting for Peace" resolution which gave the power to the General 
> Assembly of the UN the same powers as those previously held by the 
> Security Council. Therefore the US no longer held as strong of a position 
> within the Security Council as it had done in the previous five years.

Security Council resolutions alone have import, however, because
unlike the G.A. resolutions, they have the force of international law;
further, only those S.C. resolutions which have associated punitive
measures *really* mean anything.

Consider G.A. resolution 44/42 (December 1989) which called for an
International Peace Conference on the Middle East.  It passed the G.A.
151-3-1, with the U.S., Israel and Dominica opposing, and Belize
abstaining.  So the WHOLE WORLD, with the exception of these four
countries wanted a peace conference.  Did it happen?  No, because the
U.S. opposed it.  And without S.C. approval, it is not possible to
_implement_ G.A. resolutions.

But that aside, is your implication here that it's O.K. for the U.S.
to be involved in the U.N. as long as we can run the show, but when
the U.N. becomes a democratic forum (one country-one vote), then
we're outta there?  IMHO, either we're in or we're out.  I'm not for
supporting participation in the U.N. if we're going to be above the
the rule-of-law.


>     This is how it works..  When the UN meets the General Assembly 
> can ratify resolutions by a 2/3 majority vote. Once ratified a resolution 
> is then passed down to the Chief Executive of the member State and 
> that executive is OBLIGED to accept and carry out the resolution's 
> provisions. The government must ignore, abolish, revise and rescind 
> laws in their territories which conflict with resolutions passed by 
> the General Assembly of the UN; and pass laws which will put these 
> resolutions into force.

The U.S. still provides the lion's share of funding/support to the
U.N., and still pretty much calls the shots in the Security Council.
(and in any event, has veto power.) So it's unlikely the U.N. will be
arm twisting the U.S. any time soon.  And even if it did, who's going
to enforce it?  Will we have to send our own troops to Washington? :-)


>     Maybe to you this is not so serious stuff, to me it is. However 
> I submit to you that this would not be so; and my original argument 
> would stand {that our signing of the UN Treaty was unconstitutional} 
> if the Constitution was worded in the following manner:
>
>     "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States {and all 
> Treaties} which shall be made in pursuance thereof"... (see previous 
> message for EXACT wording).
> 
>     Had the phrase And all Treaties been placed before "Made in pursuance 
> thereof"then all treaties the We The People entered into would have 
>had to been Constitutional.

If you're this concerned about the U.N. (which has about as much force
as yellowed cellophane tape, IMHO), you should write Bro. George about
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), which has been agreed to
in principle by the U.S., Canada and Mexico, or the U.S.-Canada FTA
which is already in place.  These stand to impact the lives of
Americans to a far greater extent than the U.N., me thinks!

As an aside, I think NAFTA is not only a good idea, it's necessary.
It will be the world's largest trading block, and will be absolutely
essential in dealing with and protecting ourselves against the
economic power of the EC and Japan in the coming century.

-Jim

  ACTION == LIFE
        \     	   Jim Mason                              --------------
         \    	   NTI Systems Group                         Standard  
        / \   	   NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centre        Disclaimer 
       /   \  	   +1 205 544 2122                        --------------
 SILENCE == DEATH