Shouldn't the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and nonrecognition of coup d'etats as a method of the change of power?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You know that we are not in the regime-change game. We are against interference in domestic conflicts.
The statesmen still say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations and yet it is not possible any longer not to interfere, even when we do not mean to do so.
Power's not what the Constitution was about.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
But do I think that our actions in anyway violate the War Powers Resolution, the answer is no.
Without the ability to talk about government power, there's no way for citizens to make sure this power isn't being misused.
The issue is whether the ultimate civil authority of the United States can tolerate actions in contempt of constitutional lines of authority. Any lessening of civil power over military power must inevitably lead away from democracy.
Our ability to make a decision about the declaration is hampered by the British government being reluctant to give us the clarification which we require.
Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations - adopted unanimously - called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.
No opposing quotes found.