[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3799-3801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCING THE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY RESTORATION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 8, 2005

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the American 
Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end 
United States membership in the United Nations, in the 106th, 107th, 
and 108th Congresses and if anything, conditions have made its 
relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations 
assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it 
shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this 
measure, the United Nations has been embroiled in

[[Page 3800]]

scandal after scandal, from the Oil for Food Scandal to several recent 
particularly appalling sex scandals.
  The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on 
the United Nations and has received in return only contempt from an 
organization that scoffs at traditional notions of limited government 
and sovereignty.
  Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion's share of the UN 
budget, UN bureaucrats are still not satisfied. They want direct access 
to U.S. taxpayer money without the U.S. government middleman. A current 
example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of 
the Sea Treaty. The ``International Seabed Authority'' created by the 
Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to--for the first time 
in history--impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This 
treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and UN taxation 
of Americans will become a reality.
  This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. 
withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations 
Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the 
President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, 
including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other 
affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN.
  The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the 
U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; the authorization of 
funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and the 
expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces 
as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this 
legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.
  The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. President, by 
signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first President, 
George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ``steer clear of 
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,'' lest the 
nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and 
overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support 
this measure and I hope for its quick consideration.
  In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United 
States' relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. 
sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor 
Herbert W. Titus' paper on the United Nations from which I have 
provided this excerpt:

       It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United 
     Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the 
     United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is 
     illegitimate, having created a supranational government, 
     deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the 
     people of the United States of America and peoples of other 
     member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' 
     government officials who have no authority to bind either the 
     American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of 
     the Charter of the United Nations.
       By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among 
     independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the 
     signatories only when made by competent governing authorities 
     in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon 
     them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); 
     Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 
     (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that 
     a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights 
     and duties; (2) concluded by states or international 
     organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by 
     international law.
       By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil 
     government for a unified nation or nations and establishing 
     the authority of that government. Although the United Nations 
     Treaty Collection defines a ``charter'' as a ``constituent 
     treaty,'' leading international political authorities state 
     that--``[t]he use of the word `Charter' [in reference to the 
     founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the 
     constitutional nature of this instrument.'' Thus, the 
     preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ``that 
     the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine 
     their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.'' 
     The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, 
     ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter 
     Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international 
     legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the 
     United Nations which governs the authority of the United 
     Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security 
     Council is ``similar . . . to national constitutional law,'' 
     proclaiming that ``because of its status as a constitution 
     for the world community,'' the Charter of the United Nations 
     must be construed broadly, making way for ``implied powers'' 
     to carry out the United Nations' ``comprehensive scope of 
     duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and 
     security and its orientation towards international public 
     welfare.'' Id. at 27
       The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the 
     appropriateness of this ``constitutional interpretive'' 
     approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its 
     statement that the charter may be traced ``back to the Magna 
     Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,'' a national 
     constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the 
     Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the 
     English barons and the king, but all subsequent English 
     rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen 
     certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and 
     exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
       A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil 
     rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1-
     10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978). As 
     Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:
       We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for 
     us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be 
     had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our 
     heirs.
       In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is 
     considered to be a permanent ``constitution for the universal 
     society,'' and consequently, to be construed in accordance 
     with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to 
     meet changing times and changing relations among the nations 
     and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.
       According to the American political and legal tradition and 
     the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual 
     civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people 
     ``and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, 
     be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, 
     ratified by the people's representatives elected and 
     assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a 
     proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders' Constitution 647-58 
     (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). 
     Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States 
     of America begins with ``We the People of the United States'' 
     and Article VII provides for ratification by state 
     conventions composed of representatives of the people elected 
     solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 
     418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).
       Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American 
     constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the 
     United Nations opens with ``We the peoples of the United 
     Nations.'' But, unlike the Constitution of the United States 
     of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call 
     for ratification by conventions of the elected 
     representatives of the people of the signatory nations. 
     Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations 
     provides for ratification ``by the signatory states in 
     accordance with their respective constitutional processes.'' 
     Such a ratification process would have been politically and 
     legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But 
     the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a 
     constitution.
       First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an 
     agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically 
     displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory 
     nations. Article 103 provides that ``[i]n the event of a 
     conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United 
     Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under 
     any other international agreement, their obligations under 
     the present Charter shall prevail.'' Because the 1787 
     Constitution of the United States of America would displace 
     the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which 
     the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized 
     that only if the elected representatives of the people at a 
     constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, 
     could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, 
     the Constitution of the United States of America would be, 
     legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by 
     any state's legislature as it saw fit. The Founders' 
     Constitution, supra, at 648-52.
       Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates 
     a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of 
     breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the 
     people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such 
     terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By 
     contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates 
     only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any 
     signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer 
     advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by 
     valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a 
     constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory 
     process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
       Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 
     America spells out that amendment process, providing two 
     methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which 
     requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had 
     the Constitution of the United States of America been a 
     treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. 
     Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended 
     without the unanimous consent of its member states. According 
     to Article 108 of the Charter of the

[[Page 3801]]

     United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-
     thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become 
     effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the 
     members of the United Nations, including all the permanent 
     members of the United Nations Security Council. According to 
     Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special 
     conference of members of the United Nations may be called 
     ``for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter'' and any 
     changes proposed by the conference may ``take effect when 
     ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations 
     including all the permanent members of the Security 
     Council.'' Once an amendment to the Charter of the United 
     Nations is adopted then that amendment ``shall come into 
     force for all Members of the United Nations,'' even those 
     nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America 
     is effective in all of the states, even though the 
     legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to 
     ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a 
     treaty. See Id., at 575-84.
       Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the 
     name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited 
     by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or 
     instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, 
     however, may not contradict the authority granted to the 
     governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the 
     people ratified the Constitution of the United States of 
     America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional 
     proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions 
     to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. 
     See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American 
     Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the 
     Constitutional Convention in 1787, ``Legislatures have no 
     power to ratify'' a plan changing the form of government, 
     only ``the people'' have such power. 4 The Founders' 
     Constitution, supra, at 651.
       As a direct consequence of this original power of the 
     people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the 
     new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join 
     the original 13 states without submitting the admission of 
     each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the 
     Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the 
     ``peoples'' of those nations, established a new international 
     government with independent powers to admit to membership 
     whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities 
     chose without submitting such admissions to each individual 
     member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United 
     Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately 
     confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers 
     and remain within the legal and political definition of a 
     treaty.
       By invoking the name of the ``peoples of the United 
     Nations,'' then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned 
     a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not 
     only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but 
     also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those 
     nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations 
     Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-
     General Annan made this claim crystal clear:
       Even though we are an organization of Member States, the 
     rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are 
     those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide 
     behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human 
     rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human 
     Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
       While no previous United Nations' secretary general has 
     been so bold, Annan's proclamation of universal jurisdiction 
     over ``human rights and fundamental freedoms'' simply 
     reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations 
     which contemplated a future in which the United Nations 
     operates in perpetuity ``to save succeeding generations from 
     the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental 
     human rights . . . to establish conditions under which 
     justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social 
     progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.'' 
     Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found 
     in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of 
     America: ``to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic 
     tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to 
     ourselves and our posterity . . .''
       There is, however, one difference that must not be 
     overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America 
     is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly 
     to the people for ratification by their representatives 
     elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on 
     the terms of that document. The Charter of the United 
     Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, 
     having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for 
     ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United 
     Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law 
     of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of 
     Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the 
     Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor 
     legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its 
     people.

                          ____________________