U.S. Government Negotiates Deal To Give WHO Authority Over U.S. Pandemic Policies

brownstone.org ^ | 2/23/2023 | WILL JONES

[bitt]

The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a legally binding accord with the World Health Organisation (WHO) that would give it the lawful authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic. The Epoch Times has more.

Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the Covid pandemic, US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue”. Together, they developed a “platform to maximise the longstanding U.S. Government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”

These discussions and others spawned the ‘zero draft‘ of a pandemic treaty, published on February 1st, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for February 27th to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.

Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.

“They want to see a centralised, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specialising in epidemic policy, told the Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”

[bitt]

...snip

A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”

There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration in this. They include State of Missouri v. Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws. Other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.

[bitt]

p

[ConservativeInPA]

I negotiated a deal with myself a couple of years ago to ignore the government when it comes to pandemics. Resist my FRiends.

[Nifster]

BOHICA

[frank ballenger]

Obama is going to be envious.
He tried to get the United Nations to have authority to give orders to the US military service members who would wear their own uniforms but with the robin’s egg blue helmets with UN on them, and the UN would lead them into battle for peacekeeping.
Didn’t get into reality but was his dream.

[Boomer]

The WHO is controlled by China so biden the terrible is giving our sovereignty away to China.

I believe that’s called treason and I think everyone knows what the punishment for that is.

Benedict Biden strikes again. Worst president in US history by a country mile. No one comes close and that’s really saying something after Carter and obama.

[rktman]

Uh, NOPE! As if I’d listen to them any more than fauxnocchio. 🔬😵😲🚫😷💉🐎💩

[TigersEye]

I don't take orders from mass murderers.

WHO's Tedros Adhanom Should be Tried for Crimes Against Humanity video 13:55 Mar 14, 2020

[Pirate Ragnar]

IMPEACHABLE

[Gene Eric]

At “best”, the US delegates, but doesn’t surrender

Meaningless — much like the jackass himself, Joseph Stolen.

[ronnie raygun]

He agrees, the American people don’t therefore its bullsh##

[Maris Crane]

WHY ISN’T ANYONE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY?????

This “Treaty” with the World Health Organization is going to be signed by Pedo Joe on TUESDAY, for God’s sake!!!!!

Then WHO is in charge of ALL our PANDEMICS AND ANY OTHER THING THAT THEY FEEL NEEDS TO BE UNDER CONTROL.

[nathanbedford]

This leftist end run around the Constitution by exploiting the treaty clause will not be approved by two thirds of the United States Senate. Therefore, it probably will not be submitted to the Senate for approval but will be treated like Obama's bizarre deal with Iran and his Paris climate accord. In the absence of treaty, the 100-year-old decision of Missouri vs. Holland will not come into play.

But the lack of Senate approval will be ignored and the power of Executive Agreement will certainly be invoked to justify a tangled web of federal regulations in support of WHO mandates. Worse, expect blue states to enact a welter of legislation and regulations in support of these mandates. For example, suppose the feds tie expenditures concerning healthcare to state compliance with WHO mandates. Red states will cave. In that event it will be less likely for the court to interfere and it will likely stand aside in the manner it invoked in upholding Obama care because it becomes a matter of taxing and spending rather than individual rights.

The fact that these mandates are buttressed by executive agreements or state action should not stand as a persuasive or legitimate constitutional basis to empower the government to act where it otherwise could not. When these mandates conflict with the basic right of citizens or especially when they conflict with the right codified in the Bill of Rights, the mandate should fall and the Supreme Court would likely strike them down.

It needs to be said that all actions to be to predicted about the Supreme Court are entirely conditioned on the naïve assumption that the court will act as a judicial body rather than an appendage of the progressive movement.

[lizma2]

“The WHO is controlled by China “

Or the Davos crowd.

[afsnco]

And the morons wonder why trust in the government is destroyed.

[SisterK]

not just controlling the pandemic narrative

there is also a lot of language about Surveillance in this treaty

and not one peep out of congress

[Maris Crane]

How, in the name of God, did THIS GET BY OUR ALERT CONGRESSPEOPLE???

I have been waiting to hear SOMETHING from them.

Am I mis interpreting the meaning of this GIANT STEP TO WORLD CONTROL?

We must stop this maniac Joe from destroying us in small cuts.

[silverleaf]

“ legally binding”

Yeah, come get us

[FlingWingFlyer]

WHO’S on first? WHO chose a pretty crappy pronoun.