Dear Friend,

What is your understanding of the word, "interpretation?" I don't know about
you, but I've been a member of enough different churches/denominations, and
I've been to my state capitol enough times, to know that certain individuals
"interpret" both the Bible and our federal and state constitutions to say
whatever they want them to say!

Let us remember that our federal and state constitutions were written, for
the most part, with the Bible in mind. You can read your own state
constitution via the InfoQuest* website at:
http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Government.htm

Now, take a look at the present state, morally and constitutionally, of the
United States of America. Why are we, as a nation, sliding into moral
depravity? Why are we allowing our legislators to take away our freedoms?
Could it be that many people in the U.S.A. interpret our constitutions the
same way that they interpret the Bible?

Quite frankly, I'm very upset over "interpretation." Whatever happened to
reading the Bible and our founding laws at their face value? Have we been so
brainwashed in fantasy and entertainment that we find everything "relative"
and fiction, able to be rewritten to our whims?

In order to best understand the Bible, we go back to the Hebrew and Greek,
the languages in which the Bible was originally written. We look at the
language alongside of the culture and history of the time, to understand
exact meaning. The same must be done to understand our constitutions; the
foundation on which the U.S.A. is built.

'Erich,' you may be thinking, 'why are you focusing on the U.S.A.;
Christians should focus on the world. Are you being separatist-minded,
making the USA a savior of the world?' No. The way I see things, is that you
find the best working model of something, understand why it works so well,
and then share it with the world. The government of the U.S.A. was founded
on Biblical principles, which is why the U.S.A. was protected and blessed by
God for hundreds of years. This is just like the book of Kings; God blesses
Israel when they worship Him; He lets them be attacked and enslaved when
they turn from Him.

I implore you to read the following speech by Mr. McManus. Think to yourself
how, running a country by ignoring the Biblically-founded Constitution, is
parallel to a country or a people living in ignorance of the Bible.

The beauty that I see in the world is that ALL Truth is of God. Truth in
government (run on Biblical principles), family structure, business, music,
entertainment, etc. When we run and fill our lives with things based on
Truth from God, good things happen!

Read and share this speech with others who care about Truth. By taking
ACTION with Truth, we, through Christ, can have His Will on earth as it is
in Heaven. After you read this speech, if you'd like to discuss it, you can
reply to this e-newsletter,
go to http://www.nolajbs.net/forum ,
and/or go to
http://www.nolajbs.net/chat .

The Constitution, Yes! The UN Charter, No!
by John F. McManus
President, The John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/
Houston, Texas - January 18, 2003
http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm

As we all know, a very long list of individuals must swear an oath to the
U.S. Constitution when they begin to perform their duties. Every President,
cabinet official, member of Congress, member of the military, even all who
serve in state legislatures must be bound by oath to support the
Constitution. Each of us, therefore, has a right to expect that these
individuals know what the document contains, and will abide by its
provisions.

If you asked any one of these persons why a member of Congress serves for
only  two years, a member of the Senate for six years, and a President for
four years, he or she would point to the Constitution. Those portions have
never been amended and are well known. If you asked whether the Constitution
might be changed or added to, you'll get a positive response. This is also
well known.

But when you point to Article I, Section 8, Clause II,
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/constitution.htm
you'll invariably get a far different reaction. The clause in question
states in part, "Congress ... shall have power to declare war.." That only
Congress has such power is obvious because no similar grant is given in the
Constitution to any other branch of government or any person. And there has
been no amendment altering that delegation of power.

There are, of course, those who claim that the designation of the President
as "commander in chief" means that he has the power to declare war. If so,
then the men who wrote the Constitution are rather stupid for having
assigned war-making power to Congress earlier in the document. They would
seem to have delegated the same power twice. But they weren't stupid. They
didn't grant such power to the President or anyone else. They saw to it that
Congress, and Congress alone, can send the nation into war.

Some who want war claim that the Constitution gives this power to the
President by designating him "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into
the actual service of the United States.." A reading of the intent of the
Founders confirms that this is an assignment of responsibility when events
call for it, not a grant of power. The President is not authorized to use
the military at his pleasure. Nor is he to be the commander in chief of U.S.
forces when they are part of a coalition under NATO, or under the United
Nations, or under some other multi-national grouping. And he cannot
legitimately transfer command of those forces to NATO or to the UN where
foreign officials can require them to engage in some military action.

The Founders were pretty adamant about who would have power to send the
nation into war. South Carolina's Charles Pinckney took part in the 1787
deliberations where the Constitution was created. When he went back to his
state to inform the people about it so that they would approve ratification,
he said of this crucial matter, "... the President's powers did not permit
him to declare war." That's pretty clear.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the 1787 convention, but he knew the Constitution
well enough to state: "... the question of declaring war is the function
equally of both houses of Congress.." He even expanded on this important
point when he added, "The power of declaring war being with the Congress,
the executive branch should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide
for war."

In the more than 200 years since the Constitution became the "supreme law of
the land" sworn to by all government officials, Congress has declared war
only five times. In other words, the Constitution's grant to Congress alone
to declare war was well known and respected. Congress used its authority at
the start of the War of 1812. Then, in 1846, Congress declared war on
Mexico; in 1898, on Spain; in 1917, on Germany; and in 1941, on Japan. These
were clear-cut declarations, issued jointly by both houses of Congress.
(When Germany then declared war on our nation in 1941, Congress certified
that a state of war existed relative to that nation.)

Does it come as a surprise to recall that our nation won each of those
declared wars? This is not a small point. We haven't won a war since 1945.
The reason we haven't won any since WWII is that, essentially, we gave up
our sovereignty to the United Nations in 1945. We no longer act in America's
best interests; we submit to world opinion. We don't win our wars; we either
lose outright or allow the situation to fester. One reason why some wars
aren't ended seems to be that they can be re-ignited for future
unconstitutional purposes.

Let's now look at how the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to
declare war has been ignored. On June 25, 1950, the forces of communist
North Korea invaded friendly South Korea. President Truman used legitimate
powers in sending American troops to rescue approximately 2,000 Americans in
the region. This is a proper use of the military but it should have ended
right there. Two days later, the UN Security Council passed a resolution
calling on "all members of the United Nations" to aid South Korea
militarily. President Truman immediately summoned congressional leaders to
the White House and informed them he was sending America's forces in
response to the UN's resolution.

When House Speaker John McCormack informed the full House of the President's
plan, its members stood and cheered. That meant that the U.S. Constitution's
grant of sole war-making power to Congress had been shoved into a bottom
drawer. It has never been retrieved.

In 1950, America was fearful of communism. Eastern Europe had fallen. So had
China. Numerous revelations of communist penetration of our own government
and society had been in the headlines. What wasn't in the headlines,
however, was that our own leaders had made the Soviet monster formidable;
our own leaders had betrayed China into the hands of Mao tse-Tung; and many
of our own leaders were doing everything they could to shield communists at
home. Given the chance, those who wanted the U.S. to become the UN's
submissive underling used anti-communism to accomplish their goal.

But, even though anti-communism was prevalent and there was no doubt that
North Korea's communist hordes intended to establish communism in South
Korea, there were some in Congress who believed their oath to the
Constitution was important. The very day after President Truman's
announcement, Ohio Senator Robert Taft told his Senate colleagues that he
would support a declaration of war against North Korea if one were
requested. But, and this is this consideration I want to stress, he said he
would not willingly allow the President to usurp the power of Congress to
use the Armed Forces of our nation without such a declaration. He stated:
"If this incident is permitted to go by without protest, at least from this
body, we would have finally terminated for all time the right of Congress to
declare war, which is granted to Congress alone by the Constitution of the
United States." Note that he said "alone."

It, of course, remains to be seen if Senator Taft's use of the phrase
"finally terminated for all time" was correct. Whether Congress's sole power
can be properly restored is up to the people in this room and our tens of
thousands of compatriots throughout the nation.

Mr. Truman knew what the Constitution said about which branch of the
government had the sole power to send the nation into war. That's precisely
why he repeatedly referred to the struggle as a mere "police action," not a
war. But war it was, and war it has come to be labeled. Certainly the
families of the tens of thousands of Americans who perished in Korea knew it
was war. One month after it started, Secretary of State Dean Acheson
announced with great delight, "All actions taken by the United States to
restore peace in Korea have been under the aegis of the United Nations."
That has been the case ever since in the Korean War that has never ended.
Though an armistice of sorts exists, the conflict has never been settled and
37,000 American troops are still posted in South Korea.

If the war in Korea had been properly declared, it would have ended - and it
would have ended in victory. But it wasn't declared and the placement of
U.S. forces serving under UN command began.

In Vietnam, there again was no declaration of war. This conflict was fought
under SEATO, a UN "regional arrangement" which is the term appearing in the
UN Charter. Again no victory, and again tens of thousands of American
families in mourning as their sons, husbands and fathers were brought home
for burial. There weren't any UN flags flying this time, but the UN -
through SEATO - was in charge. And though there eventually were many
protests, there were none about sending our forces into battle without a
declaration of war. The pertinent portion of the Constitution stayed in that
bottom drawer.

In 1991, George Bush (the elder) sent U.S. forces into Iraq to rescue Kuwait
from Saddam Hussein. But he went to the UN for authorization, got what he
wanted, and said his dual purpose was to bring about a "reinvigorated"
United Nations and build a "new world order." He later boasted, "I didn't
have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to kick Saddam Hussein
out of Kuwait." And the old goats in Congress allowed him to get away with
that incredible insult to themselves and the Constitution. The U.S. role as
the policeman of the world for the UN had been intensified.

Other examples of the misuse of America's military occurred during
incursions into Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia. But we must turn our attention to
the current buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East and their preparations
for a war against Iraq.

On September 19,2002, President George W. Bush sent a resolution to Congress
seeking approval for an invasion of that nation. His justification for such
a request cited Iraq's non-compliance with numerous UN Security Council
resolutions. He even cited the congressional authorization given by the UN
to his father 11 years earlier for action against Iraq. But the key here is
Article 25 of the UN Charter which states: "The Members of the United
Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council
in accordance with the present Charter." If the UN says attack, we must
attack. We have committed to do so by agreeing to the UN Charter. Other UN
member nations (191 in number) are equally obliged to do so - but no one
seems to care about the obligations of these others.

In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan at UN headquarters in New York. Less than one
month at his new post, he made the administration's position clear about the
preeminence of the UN over the U.S. Constitution. He stated: "With respect
to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security
Council, we obviously are bound by UN resolutions." What about the
Constitution that he, President Bush, and all federal officials have sworn
an oath to uphold? Part of that Constitution states that it shall be "the
supreme law of the land," not the UN Charter or UN resolutions.

Yes, we have a veto. But no, the kind of leaders we have had for decades
won't use the veto to assert the independence of this nation. They willingly
submit to UN dictates that they obviously feel must be obeyed. Their loyalty
is to the UN Charter, not to the Constitution. And when these leaders seek
authorization from the UN to use our forces to carry out UN dictates, aren't
they admitting that the UN is our superior? One seeks authorization from a
superior, not an inferior.

What is crucially important to understand is that our nation is being
delivered to the UN by America's leaders. The UN isn't taking us over; we're
being given to the world body. Kofi Annan and all his staff aren't the
problem; our own leaders are doing us in.

When our nation was placed in the UN in 1945, America's leaders agreed to
carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Is America still a
sovereign nation?

Sovereignty does not square with that commitment. Shouldn't Congress take
action to reverse that travesty? Shouldn't America get out of the United
Nations? The purpose of our nation having a military force must be restored
to the intent of the Founders - and I might add - to the intent of the
overwhelming majority of the American people. That purpose is to protect the
lives, liberty and property of Americans. That's all!

Congress debated Mr. Bush's September 19th request for it to sanction the
use of our nation's military to attack Iraq. Like his father before him, Mr.
Bush doesn't concede that he needs congressional approval. But it serves his
purpose and that of his mentors to have Congress provide it. As the measure
worked its way through the House, it became the subject of debate in the
House International Relations Committee chaired by Representative Henry Hyde
of Illinois. One of this committee's members, Texas Representative Ron Paul,
http://www.house.gov/paul/
introduced an amendment calling for a declaration of war by the Congress. He
let it be known that he intended to vote against his own amendment because
he doesn't believe we should go to war against Iraq. He wanted to begin
reestablishing the Congress's prerogative, to get the Congress's war-making
power out of that bottom drawer. But his amendment was defeated in a 45 to 0
vote.

During consideration of the Paul amendment, Chairman Hyde (whom we are told
is a conservative stalwart) stated that the Constitution's grant of power to
Congress alone to declare war no longer applies. He said, "There are things
in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration
of war is one." He called the portion of the Constitution in question
"anachronistic," "inappropriate," and "no longer relevant to a modem
society." In other words, leave it in the bottom drawer; we must obey the
Security Council's wishes.

California congressman Tom Lantos, the committee's ranking Democrat, agreed
with Hyde and said that the proposed amendment calling for a declaration of
war had "a touch of frivolity and mischief." Yet the measure requested by
the President was aptly described by California Republican congressman Ed
Royce, another supposed conservative stalwart, as a statement that "permits
the President to wage war." But he and the others who favored the
President's plan for war, and recognized that his plan indeed called for
war, would not declare war.

So the Constitution's requirement for a congressional declaration of war
against Iraq was beaten down in committee. These members of Congress didn't
want to honor the Constitution; they felt more obligated to the President
and the UN. So they unanimously approved the President's request in their
committee and sent it to the full House where it won approval, 296 to 133,
on October 10th. The Senate followed with its approval the very next day by
a vote of 77 to 23. Mr. Bush now has congressional approval to do what he
said he would do anyway, use U.S. troops to enforce UN Security Council
resolutions. The members of Congress who approved this measure actually
deepened our nation's submission to the United Nations.

More than a dozen years before he became our nation's president, a young
Abraham Lincoln addressed the matter of constitutional war-making power in a
letter to his law partner. He stated:

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons.. Kings had
always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending
generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This,
our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly
oppressions; and they resolved so to frame the Constitution that no one man
should hold the power of bringing that oppression upon us."

Mr. Bush says Saddam must be attacked because he might have nuclear weapons.
But China already has nuclear weapons and has boasted of aiming them at our
West Coast cities. Mr. Bush says Iraq must be attacked because his human
rights record is bad. But China's human rights record is worse. Our
President reminds us that Iraq once attacked a neighbor nation. So has
China, and the once-independent nation of Tibet has been absorbed by the
Beijing regime. But Mr. Bush has targeted Iraq. Only a few months ago, in
obvious contrast, he welcomed China's dictator, Jiang Zemin, to his Texas
ranch for a barbecue. As Mr. Lincoln suggested, the power Mr. Bush is using
is the power of a king. But America isn't supposed to be ruled by a king.
The supreme law here isn't a man; it's a Constitution.

The Middle East has become a potential war zone once again. Any action we
take there will likely result in stepped-up terrorist attacks here at home.
Everyone knows this but it is being ignored. Saudi Arabia, supposedly our
ally, has refused the use of air bases for any action against Iraq. Some
ally! If this nation can thumb its nose at the UN, why can't ours? Our
forces are supposed to rely on Qatar, a small kingdom that survived a Moslem
fundamentalist coup attempt only recently. Placing our forces in that small
nation endangers all of them.

There's another related consideration that is being ignored. Iraq is a
secular state, not a religiously run nation like Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
Other religions are permitted to exist in Iraq, but they are not tolerated
in the religiously run Moslem states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al.
Overthrowing Saddam would likely mean that Iraq would be converted into
another bastion of extreme Islamic rule.

Finally, we come to the fact that what is being planned amounts to a
preemptive war, a war begun by our side against another nation without any
military provocation against us. I'm certainly no supporter of Saddam
Hussein, but I think it's none of our nation's business who leads Iraq
unless and until Iraq attacks us. We now hear the tern "regime change," and
America's forces are supposed to work for that goal. Imagine how Americans
would feel if some other nation - or nations - decided that we must submit
to "regime change." Is this what the American people pay taxes to
accomplish? Is this allowed by the Constitution? Is it allowed morally?
Isn't a just war one fought in defense?

We have touched on a variety of topics but, overall, the Constitution is our
subject. Its provision assigning sole power to Congress to take the nation
into war must be restored. No more no-win "police actions"! No more
presidents acting like kings! No more rubber-stamping congressmen who bow
down before the President and the UN! No more submission to the UN!
http://www.getusout.org/

The Constitution and membership in the United Nations cannot be reconciled.
It's one or the other. Those who are required to abide by the Constitution
cannot adhere to some of its provisions while ignoring others. Members of
Congress certainly don't ignore Article I, Section 6 that says they "shall
receive a compensation for their services." They are honor bound to each
clause in the Constitution, not just some. This is the message we must bring
to the American people. And we must do so without delay because time is
running out if independence is to be preserved. The task ahead can be
accomplished and I urge all to continue to be about this noble and essential
work through The John Birch Society.
http://www.jbs.org
http://www.getusout.org
http://www.TheNewAmerican.com