To: E. Pluribus Unum
This is a governing convention, not a treaty.
A treaty is not a proper end around for the Amendment process to let the federal do something it has no lawful power to do or let it delegate powers it never possesed.
2 posted on
10/03/2022 6:14:52 PM PDT by
Rurudyne
(Standup Philosopher)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
the UN – is drafting a treaty that, if signed by Joe Biden, would surrender U.S. health policy to the global body.
Biden’t signing of a treaty might look nice, but it isn’t binding unless it is ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate.
3 posted on
10/03/2022 6:16:18 PM PDT by
hanamizu
To: E. Pluribus Unum
A “treaty” can NOT do what the Constitution forbids
4 posted on
10/03/2022 6:21:50 PM PDT by
eyeamok
(founded in cynicism, wrapped in sarcasm)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Treaties must be ratified in the senate. I didn’t think the president can alone sign America to any treaty?
5 posted on
10/03/2022 6:24:52 PM PDT by
blackdog
("That's an applause line you useful idiots" )
To: E. Pluribus Unum
But then again the president can’t forgive or erase loans either.
6 posted on
10/03/2022 6:26:20 PM PDT by
blackdog
("That's an applause line you useful idiots" )
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Needs ratification by the Senate for Biden to LEGITIMATELY do anything under the auspices of the 'agreement'.
Note the stressing of legitimate. Given what has transpired the last couple of years, that dosen't seem to be an issue.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I would think any such treaty would need a Senate confirmation. Yea or nay????
10 posted on
10/03/2022 7:00:10 PM PDT by
elpadre
(W )
To: E. Pluribus Unum
reasons to bring in foreign troops if we disobey the lockdown
14 posted on
10/04/2022 1:06:17 PM PDT by
Faith65
(Isaiah 40:31 )
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson