Posted on 04/30/2024 5:48:34 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Americans stand just weeks away from handing over massive amounts of taxpayer funding, protective equipment intended for U.S. citizens, and an incalculable amount of influence over U.S. policy to the World Health Organization (WHO), critics warn.
The global governance body will resume meetings to revise the WHO Pandemic Agreement on Monday. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), established to draw up the text of the agreement in December 2021, will hold its ninth meeting from April 29 to May 10. That provides just over two weeks before the 77th World Health Assembly meets from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland, to ratify the final document.
The most recently updated version of the “Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement,” amended on April 22, would redistribute wealth and protective equipment away from the U.S., establish a global governing board with little accountability to U.S. citizens and, critics say, water down U.S. sovereignty over how it responds to future pandemics.
The latest version of the agreement calls on nations to adopt “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” to pandemics, “including the private sector and civil society.” Governments should carry out so-called education programs that will suppress competing narratives about the pandemic, as the U.S. government did during COVID-19. Nations must also conduct research to determine what forces “hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic,” such as mask and vaccine mandates.
(Excerpt) Read more at harbingersdaily.com ...
Treaty? Are they calling it a treaty? It will be a treaty when it passes the US Senate. Biden can try to pretend it’s real, put them in a truck comes in the door, he can withdraw from it.
I always want to call him Tedros-Tedros after Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
I’ve seen that numerous countries around the world have already told WHO to shove it.
We were warned.
"With Only Weeks Away, Experts Urgently Warn WHO Pandemic Treaty Will Usurp US Sovereignty"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
First, the states have never expressly constitutionally given the federal government the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes (Obamacare unconstitutional imo), not even to stop the spread of contagious diseases.
Justice Joseph Story had put it this way about national federal healthcare.
"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, 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 [emphases added], though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
"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 fact, Story had also clarified that peacetime foreign aid and subsidies are unconstitutional.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
Also, both Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly based on his experience as President of Senate, and Supreme Court had clarified that fed's power to make treaties cannot be used as a way around the Constitution's Article V amendment process to petition states for new federal powers like the crooks in DC are evidently trying to do with WHO Pandemic Treaty.
“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.
Democratic and Republican Trump supporters need to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new patriot Congress so that he won't be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term in office, the new Congress also supporting Trump to quickly finish draining the swamp.
“It will be a treaty when it passes the US Senate. “
Sadly we live in the post Constitutional era. Since 1945 our nation has gone to war a number of times without a Constitutional declaration. January 6 protestors were arrested, denied due process. and incarcerated for years without trials. On this forum, within the last week a respondent to one of my posts insisted the 1994 agreement between the US, Great Britain and Ukraine is a “treaty” obligating the US to defend Ukraine, even though it never passed the Senate.
Most politicians are attorneys and our laws schools have been teaching the living Constitution, not the meaning of the framers, since the middle of the last century. The Constitution today means what whoever wields power says in means.
there is some ancient edict that states that if a president does something by executive order which gets the nation into a treaty, and the congress does not act to prevent it, or object via majority, then it ‘becomes binding’- one of the newsmax hosts had some fella on that explained it better than i could- but apparently it is still in effect-
BUT- IF a feckless democrat does give away our nation’s sovereignty, then the republicans will have a very powerful election point IF they can get the message out enough that democrats hate this nation so much that they are willing to surrender our nation’s most precious quality, our sovereignty
No, that is not the case. It’s clear black and white in the constitution. It does not become a treaty unless 2/3 of the Senate ratifies it. The rest of the world think the leader of a country with his signature can join the treaty. But they are all well aware that that does not apply to United States. They try to pretend it’s not true, but it is. There has never been a supreme court case that has held a treaty to be law of the land without Senate confirmation.
There is no Senate pocket veto approval. For executive orders, yes. But not for a treaty. If it does not get submitted for the Senate approval, it can be killed by the incoming Trump administration. The Paris climate treaty is a classical recent example.
No, that is not the case. It’s clear black and white in the constitution. It does not become a treaty unless 2/3 of the Senate ratifies it. The rest of the world think the leader of a country with his signature can join the treaty. But they are all well aware that that does not apply to United States. They try to pretend it’s not true, but it is. There has never been a supreme court case that has held a treaty to be law of the land without Senate confirmation.
There is no Senate pocket veto approval. For executive orders, yes. But not for a treaty. If it does not get submitted for the Senate approval, it can be killed by the incoming Trump administration. The Paris climate treaty is a classical recent example.
No, that is not the case. It’s clear black and white in the constitution. It does not become a treaty unless 2/3 of the Senate ratifies it. The rest of the world think the leader of a country with his signature can join the treaty. But they are all well aware that that does not apply to United States. They try to pretend it’s not true, but it is. There has never been a supreme court case that has held a treaty to be law of the land without Senate confirmation.
There is no Senate pocket veto approval. For executive orders, yes. But not for a treaty. If it does not get submitted for the Senate approval, it can be killed by the incoming Trump administration. The Paris climate treaty is a classical recent example.
There are print plenty of Ukraine fans who like to pretend it’s a treaty. But it isn’t. They tried the same argument with the Paris climate treaty. Trump pulled out of it, and the courts did not stop it. If it’s not ratified by the Senate, it’s nothing more than a agreement with that one president who sets policy basically by an executive order. But it does not become part of the constitution the way a treaty elevates after Senate confirmation. The next president can abrogate it.
Well, that’s the point isn’t it?
There are print plenty of Ukraine fans who like to pretend it’s a treaty. But it isn’t. They tried the same argument with the Paris climate treaty. Trump pulled out of it, and the courts did not stop it. If it’s not ratified by the Senate, it’s nothing more than a agreement with that one president who sets policy basically by an executive order. But it does not become part of the constitution the way a treaty elevates after Senate confirmation. The next president can abrogate it.
Sovereignty?
Do we even have any left?
i had posted the rule awhile back in another similar thread, and a link to the segment on newsmax that spoke about it- if congress doesn’t act- then it ‘becomes binding’ according to the rule that apparently is still in effect- =- I might have the basics a bit skewed, but somehow a president can act without the need for congress to act- mind too tired to think right now-
I will see if i can find it tomorrow- too late right now-
[[ But it does not become part of the constitution the way a treaty elevates after Senate confirmation. The next president can abrogate it.]]
Yes, that is true- but it is supposedly ‘binding’ according to the rule until a different president undoes it- I didnt state my previous posts quite correctly- but im sure it has soemthign to do with congress not acting- but again, i’ll go through my posts tomorrow and see if i can find the link-
Yeah, I think that’s correct. He can enter into agreements that basically are executive orders. And the next Pres can end it with another order.
And until Senate ratification, the agreement he implements with that EO cannot flatly violate the Constitution. For example, he cannot enter into an agreement with the EU that America will collect up all handguns and destroy them.
But yeah, we are at serious risk for the next year.
And of course, we are no longer under rule of law anymore. So really all of this is a bit academic!
As demonstrated during the last 3 years...
treaties and laws mean nothing if you don’t want to follow them.
thanks dems for showing us the way.
I’m looking for the rule now- I was shocked to,hear it mentioned as I had never heard of it before. The whole segment on Newsmax was very interesting- it’ll take me awhi,e as it was 2-3 weeks ago I posted the link
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.