Posted on 05/14/2022 12:18:57 PM PDT by RandFan
No one on national news has said boo about this.
Read. Cut the cable.
Who here thinks we’d be notified of any incoming?
“And it seems rep are sleeping……..as usual.
_________________________
The Republicans are not sleeping, they are in favor of it. Wehave a uniparty. WE are sleeping if we can’t see that.
I read it to mean the federal Constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties override state constitutions and laws.
I’ve long wished the founders had specified stronger majorities and other procedures that would make passing laws and treaties more difficult. And more limits on presidential authority.
The acknowledgement of our basic torights and freedoms can be negated by the 3/4 of politicians over righteous objections of the minority.
Has any treaty been signed, let alone ratified by the congress? You are over reaching ain’t ya?
The WHO regulations would allow Tedros to declare whatever “health emergency of international concern” that he likes (and I believe they have already referred to both climate change and gun access as such) and then mandate whatever they say worldwide.
Of course, there’s Bill Gates’s proposed standing army of 3000 “GERM” operatives, placed regionally, ready to act as justifiers and enforcers on a moment’s notice.
How am I overreaching? We have agreed to abide by WHO IHRs, as I understand it.
Even wikipedia admits US is under 42 states of emergency.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=us+delared+emergencies+whitehouse.gov&t=h_&ia=web
Research the Federal Register of 1/18/2022.
See the light yellow block of text here
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/wake-up-and-smell-the-burning-of?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&s=r
Again, treaties DON’T override the constitution.
Obama tried that trick before. It never went anywhere because Congress did not pass it.
No it doesn't.
This is not being attempted as a treaty: just as a massive updating to WHO regulations.
But look already how many of our constitutional rights were de facto suspended over the past two years. There is what is de jure right and allowed—and what is actually implemented and permitted.
Treaty’s don’t override the second amendment…
The US Congressional Research Service says this:
…First, in order for a treaty (but not an executive
agreement) to become binding upon the United States, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds majority. Secondly, Congress may authorize congressional-executive agreements. Thirdly, many treaties and executive agreements are not self-executing, meaning that implementing legislation is required to render the agreement’s provisions judicially enforceable in the United States.
The status of an international agreement within the United States depends on a variety of factors. Self-executing treaties have a status equal to federal statute, superior to U.S. state law, and inferior to the Constitution.
Depending upon the nature of executive agreements, they may or may not have a status equal to federal statute. In any case, self-executing executive agreements have a status that is superior to U.S. state law and inferior to the Constitution.
Courts generally have understood treaties and executive agreements that are not self-executing generally to have limited status domestically; rather, the legislation or regulations implementing these agreements are controlling…
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32528
Dems don’t care about the Constitution. All they care about is getting power over the folks and taking their money to buy votes and remain in power.
The responses to Massie show how profoundly stupid the Left is.
It's a treaty no matter what you call it. The WHO doesn't make laws for this country. And it shall not be effective unless passed by congress.
We'll have fun taking Dementia Joe to court over any such attempt.
But look already how many of our constitutional rights were de facto suspended over the past two years.
Like what?
Every such attempt is being vigorously challenged in court.
Indeed. Art2 section 3 says how a treaty becomes enacted- by 2/3 consent of the Senate.
A treaty never exceeds authority compared to the constitution, but have authority equivalent to a statute and thusly like any law or statute, are subject to review as to constitutionality.
Furthermore, some treaties require Congressional action and subsequent laws to execute the terms of the parent treaty, others are self-executing, and obviously do not require funds to be appropriated by Congress. But remember, all spending at the fedgov level must be originated in the house, and a treaty ratified by the Senate that requires public funds to execute must require an appropriation....
No treaty can violate the Bill of Rights or the existent clauses in the constitution.
“…treaties can supersede the Constitution, according to the Constitution.”
I always took that passage to mean that treaties, just like valid federal laws and the Constitution itself, were binding on all the states, not that treaties, in effect, amended the Constitution
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.