Posted on 04/20/2024 6:02:20 PM PDT by ransomnote
The US Constitution does not allow a treaty to be enforced unless the Senate ratifies it. The rest of the world operates on the signature of the leader concept. Customary international law” does not trump the Constitutional requirement of Senate ratification.
The Paris climate accords is the latest example. Obama signed that treaty, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. When Trump came in, he pulled us out of it.
And the Supreme Court could not force anyone to obey a treaty without it being ratified.
You realize of course that the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about the US Constitution,
as indeed most of our political rulers don’t either.
-fJRoberts-
Please, read the article. We're so far outside what the Constitution says, that to admonish me so is just callow.
We are now operating according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, effectively a treaty about treaties. And guess what? It was never ratified, but the government has been ignoring that little complication since the 1970s.
Doesn’t matter. The rest of the world can enjoy the treaty but cannot enforce it with just a president’s signature. And they all are very well aware of it being worthless without Senate ratification. US courts will not enforce a non ratified treaty… not yet.
I read it, but the unratified Vienna treaty on treaties does not supersede the treaty clause of the US constitution and no Supreme Court has gaps that so far.
“We are now operating according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”
Inaccurate. If that was the case we would have not submitted any more treaties to the Senate since that time, but we have. Presidents enter into agreements, but they do not carry force of law in the USA unless they otherwise completely follow the constitution. And such agreements can be ended at will by the next president. They made all your arguments about the Paris climate treaty and Trump ended it just the same.
I’m sure someone someday will change that in our Supreme Court, but we aren’t there yet.
The government has been taking advantage of it since the 1970s, particularly with Section 1531 of the ESA. NO ONE has challenged that successfully, and one would think that if it were a likely avenue it would have been tested by now. I think you know that I wish I could agree with you, but suggest that that extra comma in the Supremacy Clause may be more problematic than the debators at the Virginia Ratifying Convention realized.
I think the Constitution needs a clarifying amendment there, and that the manner of ratification needs to be amended to 3/4 of the full Senate.
I've pinged Levin on both items more than once and he's never taken it up. Makes me think it's a really sticky issue.
(From the article):" The latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty proposed by WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is an admission of failure
so significant that they are suggesting nations sign an incomplete document."
“They know that they cannot show us the details of what they really want to do.
So, they are proposing an incomplete, watered-down agreement in the hopes that they will be able to make decisions in the future;
in the hopes that we won’t be paying attention,” James Roguski has concluded."
"Please note: WHO’s Pandemic Treaty has also been referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).
In this article, we refer to it as the Pandemic Agreement."
"The ninth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (“INB”) started on 18 March and ended on 28 March.
“WHO Member States agreed to resume negotiations aimed at finalising a pandemic agreement during 29 April to 10 May”
at the resumption of INB9, a statement released by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) said."
(My Comment): The WHO already facilitated and delayed international response to the covid-19 virus when it was first discovered
and has done little to nothing to discover and hold responsible the source of the virus.
As another cliche: "Fool me once shame on You. Fool me twice shame on me !"
Given the recent history of the United Nations funding and supporting NGO's who are funding illegal immigrants at the southern border, their reputation is well earned.
What *specifically* in Section 1531 are you referring to?
What *specifically* in Section 1531 are you referring to?
><
You seem to be defending the Globalist plans.
Subsection (a) at the link I provided you, listing the "authority" for the Act.
It sure as hell isn't Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Good grief. How ignorant. I asked a question for what *specifically* the original poster was referring to in Section 1531.
Re: 15 - okay, thanks.
Agreed about mentioning other countries and world regions.
Re: Art 1 Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Re: the General Welfare Clause, that ship set sail long ago as to its expansiveness. So things like ESA, etc will be unlikely to be done away with.
I read through this entire article and did not see anything that was obviously nefarious or that we are supposed to assume is nefarious. It looks like a basic legal document, attempting to set forth terms and definitions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a framework for international cooperation on pandemic preparedness and response. In fact, there are international treaties governing how different countries cooperate on a number of issues. Unless you are trying to spread misinformation that cooperating in order to attempt to prevent the emergence of pandemics and deaths of millions of people is somehow nefarious, this is a big nothingburger.
Wow, you are sick!
I don’t think so. I feel perfectly fine, in fact.
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.