[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E381-E383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 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 with out 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

[[Page E382]]

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 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 . . .''

[[Page E383]]

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.

____________________