Posted on 05/14/2022 12:18:57 PM PDT by RandFan
Treaties have Constitutional Force, as long as they do not conflict with the constitution.
If they conflict, the treaty is void.
And that’s why the NATO treaty is invalid and void.
67 Senators cannot declare war. They cannot even authorize the funds to FIGHT a war.
You’d better read post #35.
Lockdowns, censorship, forced closing of churches, Nuremberg-defying jabs for the most basic of healthcare, education, shopping and dining access, limited movement, forced masking, etc., etc.
Guys like Breyer have bought into that logic in the past, but that view won't prevail with the current judiciary.
thank god for massie & rand
And how is the lockdowns doing now?
Censorship huh?
The “Disinformation Board” is not doing well either. DeSantis has promised strong court challenges on that one.
Rand Paul has declared it will not be funded. DHS Secretary is already beating a retreat.
When is the last time any church was closed?
Courts have already declared that unconstitutional and states are passing new laws to stop it.
If we don’t abide by the treaty, WHO and it’s other members can sanction us as we have done to Russia and others. But we must not let them take over our sovereignty.
In deep blue New York or California, not in red Florida or North Dakota etc.
It is not a treaty if it does not get two thirds of the Senate to ratify it. Without that it is an “executive agreement”
Indeed.
Kudos to Rep. Thomas Massie for not only showing that a single lawmaker who respects the federal government's constitutionally limited powers can at least politically shame the constitutionally indefensible legislation of the shameless majority, but also the shameless majority of another House of Congress.
A key question regarding this controversial treaty is how could the nation possibly have survived without the 17th Amendment (17A)? /super-sarc
The problem with 17A is that ordinary voters (respectfully to freepers, that's people like you and me) are electing federal senators who evidently don't understand (blatantly ignore?) the federal government's constitutionally limited powers any better than the voters who elected them probably do.
From related threads...
Patriots, there are two basic sets of historical excerpts presented in this post. The first set explains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to dictate INTRAstate healthcare policy, not even to try to stop the spread of contagious diseases (my wording).
The second set of excerpts shows that the Supreme Court has clarified that the federal government cannot use its power to make treaties as a back door to expand its powers (my wording).
Respected constitutional experts at least as early as President Thomas Jefferson have been clarifying that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate policy for intrastate healthcare.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws [emphasis added], regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." —Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Below are excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions and congressional record that don't mention quarantine, but support the constitutional reality that healthcare issues, politically correct (imo) use of masks for example, argued to slow spread of virus, is a state power issue, not the business of the feds.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the congressional record, clarification by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress [emphases added].” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Next, below are excerpts from writings of respected constitutional experts that clarify that federal treaty power cannot be used to expand the federal government's powers.
First concerning treaties, Vice President Thomas Jefferson, when wearing his President of the Senate hat, and using his uncommon common sense, had recognized that the Senate's power to confirm treaties was limited by the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
In fact, the Supreme Court seemingly reflected on Jefferson's words when it clarified in Reid v. Covert that Senate power to confirm treaties cannot be used as a back door to expand the federal government's powers (my wording).
"The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." —Reid v. Covert, 1957.
Corrections, Insights welcome.
And since this is election year, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
WHO sanction us with what?
What's WHO got?
Hot air?
Thanks for looking it up. That was my understanding, too.
But don’t forget the Biden Doctrine. I was pleased to hear Cong. Boebert mention it last week: “No Amendment is absolute.” So, apparently, even if the treaty leaves us some rights, the President can declare an emergency or something, and POOF they are gone.
Only 3000? I could miss 95% of the time and they’d still have 0 left.
Sundance is discussing this. This comes in as amendments to IHR
Great comments there
Try it this way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.