I’m just Googling around today to independently confirm or reject Chomskys legal opinion that almost every US president is almost instantly in violation of the US constitution and the UN Charter. 🙂
The Argument is funny. US has ratified the UN charter.
Harry Truman looks on as Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius signs the United Nations Security Charter for the U.S. On this day in 1945, as World War II drew to a close, the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter by 89-2
src: click
By virtue of doing so it became constitutional law in the US, or in other legal opinions, “law on the same level as constitutional law” in the US, simply because there is a provision in the US constitution that says so.
Article VI:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
src: click
Und das wirft dann folgendes Problem mit der ratifizierten UN Charta auf:
UN Charta Chapter 1-4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
src: click
Und das bewirkt, dass nahezu jeder US Präsident (als Oberbefehlshaber der US Streitkräfte), beinahe sofort die US Verfassung und die UN Charta bricht. Und eigentlich per in der US Verfassung spezifizierter Rechtssprechung von der Judikative verfolgt werden müsste.
Reaktion der Harvard Law School Professoren beim Vortrag vor Studenten war laut Chomsky einfach nur dümmliches Lachen und Schulterzucken.
Ich kann mich über soetwas unendlich amüsieren.
Hier noch ein NYT Artikel von 1990 der explizit rechtlich argumentieren muss, warum UN Recht nicht über US constitutional law steht, wenn es um die “war making authority” der US geht. Es wird festgehalten, kann es nicht, denn es gibt da eine Sonderregelung (50 United States Code, 1547)
The House of Representatives cannot be excluded from its part in the making of war by the simple expedient of a treaty, and the Senate’s ratification of the Charter 45 years ago cannot be construed as approval of war in the desert today. By statute Congress has, I thought, made it clear that Presidential authority to involve us in hostilities “shall not be inferred … from any treaty” (50 United States Code, 1547).
src: click
Nun, eine solche Sonderregelung gibt es bezüglich UN Charta Chapter 1-4 nicht. 🙂
edit: Es gibt aber natürlich auch wieder gute Nachrichten:
