WHEN Spc. Michael New showed up at formation in Schweinfurt, Germany, at 9 a.m. on Oct. 10, he was the only soldier wearing the authorized battle dress uniform. The other 1,099 men were wearing blue U.N. patches on their right shoulders and U.N. blue baseball caps.

When our son was ordered to alter his uniform to include insignia which indicate allegiance or subjection to the United Nations, he was given what he believed to be an illegal order. Having been taught something of the meaning of the Constitution, and taking very seriously his role as an American soldier, he instinctively understood that something fundamental was involved in the involuntary change made in his uniform. Having been taught to stand up for what he believes is right, regardless of how many stand with him, Michael did not find it a particularly difficult decision. In fact, he didn't even consult with his parents - he simply went to his chain of command and politely informed them that he had a problem with the order.

The national reaction, which has been much more favorable than unfavorable, has been overwhelming to my family. Who would have ever predicted that we would be proud of a son facing court-martial?

When the framers of the Constitution placed the control of the military in the hands of a civilian Congress, they did so explicitly so no executive could have the power to involve our country in "entangling alliances" and foreign wars without the support of the American people. They greatly feared a standing army, and they feared politicians who, being mortals, tend to use and abuse whatever power they have.

Whenever a soldier, or a president, takes an oath to defend and support the Constitution, the person taking the oath is bound by the prayer at the end of the oath, "... so help me God," to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Some people take that oath more seriously than others. When an order is given to a soldier, regardless of where in the hierarchy that order originates, it is imperative that the order be consistent with the Constitution. If not, there is not only no reason to obey the order, but there is every reason to refuse to do so. It was on this basis that Michael New made his decision.

There are two primary schools of thought on this issue. The first is represented by those who see it only in light of obedience and discipline. From this perspective, Michael New is clearly wrong. The second is represented by those who see it in the light of the Constitution, and the sovereignty of the nation: that the involuntary servitude of Americans under any other power than our own government is a threat to our existence as a free nation.

This issue has annoyed presidents for years. Consider the words of that ultimate Washington Insider, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing about the League of Nations in the July/August issue of the publication Foreign Affairs:

"The commitment of troops to combat became the perennial obstacle to American acceptance of the Wilsonian dream. It is a political obstacle: how to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct difference to the United States? And it is a constitutional obstacle: how to reconcile the provision in the Constitution giving Congress exclusive power to declare war with the dispatch of American troops into hostilities at the behest of a collective security organization?"

The authority to send American troops to get involved in any dispute, at whatever level, whether it be under the Allied powers of World War II, the United Nations or NATO, is a right expressly reserved to Congress. It will continue to be so until the Constitution is amended to give the president authority to deploy troops on his own. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch has the power to delegate its authority to one another, nor to any other agency, much less to a foreign power.

Some military men are surprised to learn that the Constitution is actually a part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that no part of the UCMJ may conflict with it. What Michael had no way of knowing at the time, but what will come out in his court-martial, is the fact that the uniform changes were not only not authorized by U.S. Army regulations, but are actually prohibited by law. Furthermore, the deployment itself is patently illegal, under foreign or American commanders.

In the same article mentioned above, Schlesinger wrote, "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money. Perhaps our leaders should put the question to the people: What do we want the United Nations to be? Do we want it to avert more killing fields around the planet? Or do we want it to dwindle into impotence, leaving the world to the anarchy of nation states? You see, independence is indeed the issue here."

Notice that "nation states" are equated to "anarchy" and "isolationism." Internationalists of every stripe are determined to eliminate loyalty to one's country as an evil of the worst kind. In view of the fact that United Nations wars and "peacekeeping" actions have already cost this nation thousands of lives in the last half of this century, Schlesinger makes a great suggestion: Let's put the question to the people.

If the United Nations needs mercenaries to carry out its program for a one-world government, perhaps it ought to open recruiting offices in Houston and other major cities. Those who want to risk their lives for that glorious blue and white banner can then do so knowing precisely what they are getting into. It is time to end this "bait-and-switch" tactic of recruiting American youth to one flag, and then changing the terms of the contract once they are in.

Headlines and editorials and articles describing my son's choice have sometimes screamed pejorative labels such as "rebel" or "defiant soldier," leaving the impression of a young man who is a trouble-maker and a rebellious soldier. Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael New not only has an impeccable record, but he is deferential to all officers, very polite and utterly serious about obedience to lawful authority. But there is something in him, for which we thank God, that says, "You cannot require me to do that which is wrong."

In May 1994, President Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 25. PDD 25 is the document by which Clinton has authorized himself to set the rules for deploying troops under American control without regard for the wishes of Congress and the Constitution. Then, to make sure you and I don't object, he classified the document. You don't have to be a university professor to recognize that this president is the one who imperils the Constitution.

It is the stand of William Jefferson Clinton, not Michael Garrett New, that is forcing this nation toward a constitutional crisis.

Copyright notice:  All materials in this archive are copyrighted by Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, L.P., or its news and feature syndicates and wire services. No materials may be directly or indirectly published, broadcast rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use.