- Gun News on Gunnery Network - www.GunneryNetwork.com The UN vs. the US Constitution

The UN talks a great deal about human rights. A look at their actions helps translate what sounds good to the American ear into English we understand.

For example, I found during a recent excursion to New York City to address an anti-UN rally that getting into the UN compound from First Avenue requires leaving the U.S. Bill of Rights on the City sidewalk. My companion had a yellow sticker depicting a Jewish star of David with the message "No to Gun Control" written inside the star. He, and others with whom I spoke, were not allowed to enter until he removed the pro-gun sticker.

What most Americans do not realize is how much of the U.S. Constitution has already been supplanted by the UN Charter. I am indebted to Dr. Herb Titus, a preeminent constitutional lawyer, and the Liberty Committee (consisting of a number of conservative representatives) which commissioned his work, for the analysis that follows.

The UN Charter is not a treaty, in spite of bearing the name of treaty. Actually the UN Charter is a constitution.

The Charter violates the U.S. Constitution by delegating to the UN the power to declare war, a power specifically delegated to the U.S. Congress. However, the Constitution delegates the power to conduct war to the U.S. president. From Korea to the Gulf War, the U.S. has fought wars under the authority of the UN, not following a Congressional declaration of war.

Consider the implication of the term "police action." Countries fight wars among themselves. Police actions are conducted by a government within its own territory. The implication of a UN police action clearly is that the UN is the government of the world and all the countries are but subdivisions of the UN.

The Charter unconstitutionally delegates the power to levy taxes. The UN has arrogated unto itself the power to assess "dues" which are calculated just like a progressive income tax. If the U.S. does not pay its "dues" after two years it loses its vote in the General Assembly of the UN. The U.S. Constitution vests the power to levy taxes in the House of Representatives.

The UN Charter violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A whole gamut of state powers -- health, welfare, education, crime, environment -- are nowhere to be found as powers delegated to the federal government. They are reserved to the states. The UN Charter claims the power to act in all of these areas through treaties which would override state laws.

For years, Congress has appropriated funds for various UN organizations which in effect transfers powers reserved to the states. Consider, since the Congress is prohibited from enacting laws regarding rape, could it get into this arena by relying on the UN Charter to do so?

The UN in this way could become a gigantic Interstate Commerce Clause and abused even more than has been the ICC of the U.S. Constitution. UN spokesmen are arguing that one's physical security (i.e., freedom from rape) is an international security issue. It is the same totalitarian logic that has stretched the Interstate Commerce Clause beyond what it was ever intended to do. Originally, this provision was intended to prevent the balkanization of the states. Now, it has been stretched to the point that the federal government can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce -- even to the point where it regulates inactivity because not doing anything has a negative impact on commerce.

All these operations of the UN are those of a government operating under a constitution. Yet the U.S. Constitution was based on "We, the People" and ratified by the people in conventions assembled. The UN Charter was approved only by government agents and never submitted to the people of the US for their legislatures or conventions to ratify.

That flaw is fatal and makes the UN Charter completely illegitimate.

Gun owners should be particularly concerned because one of the "human rights" in the minds of most of the UN bureaucrats and member countries is "freedom from guns." Strictly speaking, they envision a world without privately owned guns where governments have a monopoly. The UN web site leaves no doubt that this is the preference of the UN bureaucracy. As with speech, the UN has no regard for the right to keep and bear arms.

These are reasons why the U.S. should get out of the UN. The best way to do that is to pass Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) bill, H.R. 1146, to get us out of the UN.

This article appears courtesy of Larry Pratt & Gun Owners of America

For additional information on this subject read:
Civilian Disarmament - Written by Gary Benoit

And Visit - UN Watch - http://www.UNWatch.com
This website is designed for students doing research on the United Nations. A collection of "pro and con" links to make research into both sides of several critical issues much easier.