Posted on 05/24/2022 2:12:12 PM PDT by RandFan
Leo shouldn't have gotten his law degree off the back of a cereal box.
It doesn't matter whether or not you call it a treaty, and it doesn't matter if it is only amendments to a prior treaty that we may have ratified. Any new obligations treaty obligations for the United States must be ratified by the Senate. Sometimes, even that is not enough. If the treaty is determined to have direct domestic impact rather than just covering international relations, even ratification by the Senate won't make it enforceable against American citizens. You would still have to pass implementing legislation that would have to be passed by the House, the Senate, and then signed by the President into law the same as any other law.
Some threads have mentioned that Congress is trying to amend an existing treaty.
But noting that I don't have amendment handy, there's a MAJOR constitutional problem with the amendment imo.
From related threads...
To begin with, and regardless what the misguided Roberts Court wants everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutinally given the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds the specific powers dictate INTRAstate healthcare policy, not even for trying to stop the spread of contageous diseases.
"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.
In other words, the treaty is arguably being used by alleged election-stealing, desparate, elite Democrats as a backdoor to bypass the Constitution's Article V process for new healthcare powers for the feds.
Fortunately, both Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court had clarified that the feds cannot expand their powers through treaties.
“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 .
"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.
Doesn’t our Constitution require a natural born citizen for President and VP?
Obama and Harris are not natural born citizens.
A treaty can’t be amended without senate approval.
Period.
There will be politicians who support this but who also oppose requiring any identification for voting.
Anyway, the overall analysis in the in the article either unintentionally poor, or deliberately sensationalized. It's no big deal if some international group is given the power to "declare" that there is a pandemic, unless that determination itself automatically creates binding obligations on U.S. citizens, and the article glosses over that.
tied? it the whole point of the treaty
lets say US does not comply but quite a few countries do.
Americans would have to have the digital passport to travel or business has to be in compliance to do business with those countries
We won’t even remove the Amnesty Senators who have tried multiple times to abandon the rule of law and give away our country.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you call it a treaty, and it doesn’t matter if it is only amendments to a prior treaty that we may have ratified
/\
Ah, Mr. Ballchinian here again to lull everyone asleep with outright lies.
Don’t worry citizen, it’s most certainly not a duck.
Don’t kick, don’t scream, don’t resist, certainly don’t call your political representatives and express your outrage,
and above all
Don’t spread disinformation that we are days away from medicaly excused slavery.
Shhhhhh.
Go back to sleep.
Trust me
It’s nothing
Trust me, I’m not a ballchinian for nothing.
/\
Nice try.
Bkmk
Believe me I’m as frustrated with these worthless RINO’s as you are, maybe more.
I assume you got your law degree off the back of a cereal box as well. Probably Froot Loops in your case.
That’s correct if the other countries to which we are traveling have decided to adopt those provisions as binding law. But in that case, we’re not in our own country, and don’t really have the right to dictate to other countries what their own internal procedures are.
Yes, but that apparently are some folks who want to wet their pants over this anyway.
I think a lot of conservatives need to reread The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When people hysterically label every leftist action as a sign of impending doom, people stop listening. Then, when the fecal matter truly hits those rotating blades, and you really need people to pay attention, nobody listens because they think it is another false alarm.
Campbells Chin to cuz1961
I assume you got your law degree off the back of a cereal box as well. Probably Froot Loops in your case.
/\
Wipe your chin,
it still has Soros pubic hair stuck to it.
.
Thank you. Excellent post. Very informative. I am certainly no a legal or Constitutional scholar. . . accountant by training; banker by trade.
jeeers, ya’s wunduh why d’ey want dah guns so bad?
...how the Administration can modify a treaty without going to the Senate for the changes to be ratified. Its not the same treaty that was once approved.
____________________
By calling it *an accord*.
12 of the 13 amendments have been withdrawn because there was no consensus. The 6 months to modify remains.
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.