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.
Thank you. Excellent post. Very informative. I am certainly no a legal or Constitutional scholar. . . accountant by training; banker by trade.