[Zuben Elgenubi]

If its a treaty, the Senate needs to approve. Plenty of discussion at that point.

[Sicon]

"If its a treaty, the Senate needs to approve."

Yeah. Since when does the president have the Constitutional authority to enter into a treaty?

Oh, that's right, our government is no longer bound by the Constitution, and our Congress certainly doesn't care.

[MtnClimber]

If its a treaty, the Senate needs to approve. Plenty of discussion at that point. I agree, but: A report by Justia, a legal analysis and marketing firm, states that “the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification. “During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to 60 treaties but to only 27 published executive agreements,” the report states. “Between 1939 and 1993, executive agreements comprised more than 90 percent of the international agreements concluded.” The U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions supported the notion that these executive agreements constitute federal law and supersede state laws and regulations. This includes State of Missouri v. Holland, which ruled that treaties supersede state laws, and United States v. Belmont, which ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent are legally binding on Americans. Under the U.S. Constitution, health policy falls under state jurisdiction, but the WHO pandemic accord may be a way to bring health policy under the jurisdiction of the federal government, once the WHO declares a pandemic.