Posted on 05/10/2024 6:43:45 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A coalition of 22 state attorneys general have sent a letter to Joe Biden voicing their opposition to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, raised concerns that the proposed agreement threatens U.S. sovereignty by giving the WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the people of the United States.”
Critics say that the proposed “pandemic accord” and IHR amendments would give the WHO sweeping new powers over national governments and public health authorities in the event of a new pandemic, and would help set up a global system of “digital health passports.”
In a press release Wednesday, Knudsen asserted that the proposed amendments would give the organization “authority over United States public health policy after failing to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its lies during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Knudsen warned that “if the agreements are approved, the WHO would transform from an advisory, charitable organization to the world’s governor of public health.”
“Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health. It’s to cede authority to the WHO — specifically its Director-General—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders) and informed consent,” the AGs wrote in the letter. “We therefore oppose such accords for several important reasons.”
First, the two proposed instruments would transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health. The WHO currently lacks authority to enforce its recommendations. Under proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, however, the WHO’s Director-General would achieve the power to unilaterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) in one or more member nations. Such declarations can include perceived or potential emergencies other than pandemics, including climate change, immigration, gun violence, or even “emergencies” involving plants, animals, or ecosystems. The more egregious versions of the proposals would authorize the Director-General to dictate what must be done in response to a declared PHEIC. In other words, America’s elected representatives would no longer set the nation’s public health policies. Even watered down, these proposals would inappropriately cede American sovereignty to the WHO.
Second, the federal government cannot delegate public health decisions to an international body. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government. It reserves those powers for the States. Even if the federal government had such power, Article II, Section 2 requires approval by the United States Senate.
Third, the proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s “social credit system”). The current draft instructs signatories to “cooperate, in accordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation.” This is particularly dangerous given that your administration pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech during COVID-19.
“The COVID-19 pandemic exposed fundamental flaws with the WHO and other public health institutions. These entities breached public trust and are unquestionably in need of reform. The proposed measures, however, would only exacerbate the WHO’s underlying problems and enable more civil liberties violations during future “emergencies.” Accordingly, we will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens,” the letter concluded.
If Biden signs us up for this then “Pandemic X” and WHO-controlled quarantines will surely follow.
It should be 50.
It will be interesting to see how they intend to enforce it.
Patrick Henry warned us about the treaty power during the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Hamilton lied about it in his response in Federalist 75. See Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, Its Perils and Portents
As “public health” could literally mean anything, I cannot believe that a simple agreement by the President is enough to allow a global organization like the WHO, to essentially do whatever they want. Where are the checks and balances? How are grievances filed? Where is the oversight?
Any politician who votes for this is a straight up traitor. They’re voting for the US to give up sovereignty to the WHO. That’s crazy.
They will .ikely enforce it by demanding that businesses of every kind require tO see “inoculation papers” before they allow so eone tO enter. Kinda like what happened with covid. No proof of vaccine? No “right tO do business”.
Of course the world body will claim that it is “not a law, but rather a suggestIon” but will persecute any business that does not comply- just like they did during covid shutdowns.
I still remember one business in Maine early on which defied the liberal gov there, and asked other businesses o stand witH them, but sadly none did, and the gov waged war agaisnt the business, who fought back as best they could, but ran out of money, and got run out of business. It was a truly sad state of affairs. We saw all kinds of targeted attacks by governors and mayor’s agaisnt businesses- I can’t even begin to imagine how many were forced out of business because of the “voluntary guidelines” that the governors issued
"Coalition of 22 State AGs Call on Biden to Reject Treaty Drastically Expanding WHO Authority"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
I surmise that there are 22 (50?) institutionally indoctrinated state AGs who haven't really studied the Constitution that they swore to protect and defend.
Otherwise, they would be able to argue the following MAJOR constitutional problems with expanding WHO authority over the sovereignty states.
Not only have the states never expressly constitutionally given the big, bad, corrupt feds the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes, not even to stop the spread of diseases, Obamacare unconstitutional imo, but respected constitutional experts have also noted that the federal government cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor to expand its powers.
First, Thomas Jefferson and Justice Joseph Story as examples, had noted that healthcare is a state power issue, not the business of the feds. In other words, Obamacare for example, is just another corrupt federal government front-end for unconstitutional, unaccountable federal government taxing and spending imo.
"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, 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 [emphases added], though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
"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)
"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.
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
Regarding the federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers through WHO, Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly based on his experience as President of the Senate, also the Supreme Court, had both clarified that the feds cannot use treaties to expand the federal government's powers.
“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 .
"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.
(Again) "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.
Since the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot be trusted to respect the Constitution, it is up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new patriot Congress in November so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his 2nd term, Congress also supporting him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
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.