On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:25:51 GMT, Vince Brannigan wrote:



Stephen Harding wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:



Stephen Harding wrote:



You're a law guy Vince, on what grounds does any UN action
rest? Majority vote of a largely non-elected group of
world "representatives" (I use the term extremely loosely)?

It's a house of cards! A mirage! An institution that I
once believed had value primarily in its humanitarian efforts.
I now wonder if even that much can be granted to the
organizaton.


It's charter is the law of the land in the USA


Meaning UN authority is legally binding "law" in the USA?

I'll agree the principles of the Charter are incorporated in
various form into the US Constitution (for the most part). But
the mechanism of UN action can hardly make those actions truly
binding on the US.

If it can, we're wasting an awful lot of time and money on
Presidents and Congressional delegations.


US Constitution

Article. VI.

Clause 2: 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;


Got the idea?

Vince

Gee, Vince, why don't you write a letter to the nice Osama guy and tell
him that he is in violation of the law, and would he please cease and
desist?? I am sure that he would gladly forgo violence once the great
"professor" told him to.

Al Minyard