Posted on 02/18/2023 4:38:11 PM PST by lightman
This, the Biden Administration could choose to follow WHO policies, but they are not legally binding unless part of an Act of Congress, a duly ratified treaty, or both.
This is Fox’s 61-page reply in the lawsuit:
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Fox-Reply-Dominion.pdf
Oh, yeah...world against US
There is also Article IV, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government”
-PJ
How is he allowed to do that without going through Congress?
.
"Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Why aren't "MAGA" House majority "Republicans" screaming about the following major constitutional problem with WHO dictating government-manufactured pandemic policy for US citizens?
Since the states have never expressly constitutionally given the post-17th Amendment ratification feds the specific power to dictate policy for INTRAstate healthcare, not even try to stop the spread of contageous diseases, the misguided Roberts Court wrong about unconstitutional Obamacare imo, POTUS and Senate cannot use federal treaty fower to force US citizens to comply with WHO pandemic policy.
"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.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"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.
Below are excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions and congressional record that don't mention quarantine, but support the constitutional reality that healthcare issues, politically correct (imo) mandating of masks argued to slow spread of contagious diseases for example, is a state power issue, not the business of the feds.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the congressional record, clarification by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress [emphases added].” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Patriots are also reminded that Congress cannot use its power to make treaties as a back door to expanding its constitutionally limited powers to make US citizens comply with foreign laws.
From related thread...
Consider that Thomas Jefferson had used his uncommon common sense as Secretary of State, then later his experience as president of the Senate, to point out that federal government power to make treaties cannot be used as backdoor to bypass the Constitution's Article V process for giving new powers to the fedreal government.
“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 Supreme Court later reflected Jefferson's words with the following clarification concerning the Executive and Senate abusing their power to make and confirm treaties respectively.
"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.
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
NFW
By wha5 right does this traitor give up our natioonal sovereignty?🤬🤬🤬
What? No.
Becerra is an old leftist. He is not pro-America. Should be subpoenaed by a congressional committee. His answers, if any, should be enlightening.
That part already happened when the US Senate ratified the UN charter in 1945.
Not authorized in a law passed by congress and signed by a president. Unconstitutional act if attempted by presidential edict. President does not have the constitutional authority over citizens in this manner.
Nobody protects it either ... just angry blogging.
So much this!!!!
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.