“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This oft-repeated aphorism is attributed to influential 18th-century conservative politician Edmund Burke.
Although it is disputed whether Burke ever wrote or spoke that famous phrase, there is another similar statement that he certainly wrote in 1770. “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle,” Burke wrote in his book Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.
Heeding Burke’s warning, one man recently decided to encourage his congressman to associate with others in the House of Representatives in standing up in defense of America’s constitutionally protected liberty.
On September 4, at a public meeting in Oakland, Tennessee, Mitchell Morrison of Memphis delivered a stack of postcards to Representative Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.). Each of these pieces of card stock carried the name of a constituent supporting H.R. 75, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
Five days later, Fincher signed on as a cosponsor, joining the small band of good men associating to rid the United States of one of the most dangerous threats to the perpetuation of its sovereign liberty.
Ron Paul introduced the bill in 1997 (then given the number H.R. 1146). Dr. Broun reintroduced the exact legislation earlier this year.
Seven of the bill’s 13 sections effect a complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.
Section 2 repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. This terminates membership of the United States “in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.”
Section 3 of the act would repeal the The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act. This agreement — signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947 — established New York City as the permanent headquarters of the United Nations. The effect of this provision of the bill would be the immediate relocation of the UN headquarters to other, more hospitable shores.
Section 4 cuts off the flow of U.S. taxpayer money that is the lifeblood of the accomplishment of the internationalists’ agenda, including the disarmament of citizens of the United States. Specifically, the bill mandates:
No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate termination of United States membership and withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment, in accordance with sections 2 and 3, respectively. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.
For over 50 years, The John Birch Society has been the tip of the spear in the drive to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The group’s webpage devoted to the issue explains:
One of the first campaigns of The John Birch Society was to get the U.S. out of the United Nations. The global power elites view the UN as their main vehicle for establishing, step by step, a socialistic global government controlled by themselves. Now, more than ever, we need to get out of the UN and remove the UN from the United States.
Should it be passed, Broun’s bill would be a powerful legislative lever constitutionalists could use to pry the United States free of the trap of the United Nations.
Support for a bill calling for the restoration of sovereignty to the elected representatives of the people of the United States should be a no-brainer for those representatives. Particularly, given the fact that every one of those representatives swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Constitutionally speaking, the Charter of the United Nations is binding neither on the people of the United States nor on the government they created in the Constitution. The Charter of the United Nations purports to establish an international governing body. That act is illegitimate as it divorces the government from the consent of the governed.
Specifically, the various agreements, courts, councils, and treaties promulgated by the United Nations with the participation of the government of the United States and ostensibly applicable to the states of the United States violate Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Constitution.
Among other unconstitutional aspects of the UN Charter, it is not within the “authority of the United States” (as required by Article 6 of the Constitution) to enter into agreements or treaties that grant legislative power to an extraconstitutional body (a violation of Article 1), that grant judicial power to international courts (a violation of Article 3), or that deprive states of a republican form of government (as required by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution).
Although it is not, many consider the UN Charter a treaty. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the UN Charter is a treaty and that it was ratified by the Senate (as it was on July 28, 1945 by a vote of 89-2), it is still void for contravening the Constitution.
When it comes to treaties — or any act passed by Congress for that matter — the analysis must begin by looking within the four corners of the Constitution.
Article 6 of the Constitution declares:
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 notwithstanding.
That means that in order to have any lawful effect, the object of any treaty signed by the president and ratified by the Senate must lie within their constitutional authority ("the authority of the United States").
In the case of the UN Charter and subsequent agreements and treaties entered into by the United States, the very creation of them presumes powers not granted to the Congress, as explained above.
If the Congress and president were to disregard these restrictions on their power as they so often do, the mandates of the resulting treaty would not be the law of land, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist, no. 33:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
Thomas Jefferson echoed that point specifically as it pertains to the topic of treaties. He wrote, “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.”
Beyond the violations of the Constitution laid out above, the UN Charter illegally grants war-making power to the United Nations Security Council.
Resolutions requiring funding by the government of the United States are routinely passed by the UN General Assembly, in open and hostile violation of the Constitution’s exclusive grant of “all legislative powers” to the Congress of the United States.
Finally, the powers retained by the states and the people as set out in the Tenth Amendment are robbed from them by the UN Charter.
Every American committed to restoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and to ridding the American people of the of subjection to the United Nations can follow the example of Mitchell Morrison.
Each of us can gather signatures, collect postcards, and present them to his congressman, demonstrating the depth of support for H.R. 75 among his constituents.
If we are successful, soon other liberty-minded legislators will associate with Broun, Fincher, and the other five co-sponsors of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. Then, perhaps there will come a day when Congress can undo the harm that was done over 60 years ago by another group of representatives.