NOT one word of an 'agreement' with any foreign ( The UN OR the WHO) country is valid when it is in direct conflict with the US. Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not only null and void but ANYONE involved is committing Treason. As for this 'treaty' obliterating THE 2nd Amendment? THE 2nd Amendment represents the largest army on Earth which is 120 Million well armed Americans. They can ruin the average life that Americans enjoy, but they can not Own and Rule over US, because they can not send enough men to defeat 120 million pissed off Americans.
However, "a Lie gets halfway around the world before the Truth gets its boots on." They can be wrong for a long time and get away with it, it seems to me.
Biden can sign whatever he likes. Setting aside the issue of whether or not Biden is legitimate, the USA Inc. is legitimate, etc., the official process as I understand it is that a President could sign a treaty, but the Legislative Branch must ratify it. And, as you stated, if the substance of a treaty runs counter to the Constitution, the Judicial Branch would want to have a say on that as well, I think.
NOT one word of an 'agreement' with any foreign ( The UN OR the WHO) country is valid when it is in direct conflict with the US. Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not only null and void but ANYONE involved is committing Treason. As for this 'treaty' obliterating THE 2nd Amendment? THE 2nd Amendment represents the largest army on Earth which is 120 Million well armed Americans. They can ruin the average life that Americans enjoy, but they can not Own and Rule over US, because they can not send enough men to defeat 120 million pissed off Americans.
Correct.
However, "a Lie gets halfway around the world before the Truth gets its boots on." They can be wrong for a long time and get away with it, it seems to me.
Biden can sign whatever he likes. Setting aside the issue of whether or not Biden is legitimate, the USA Inc. is legitimate, etc., the official process as I understand it is that a President could sign a treaty, but the Legislative Branch must ratify it. And, as you stated, if the substance of a treaty runs counter to the Constitution, the Judicial Branch would want to have a say on that as well, I think.