"We The People" must expose and take command of this corrupt process, which is currently being conducted under great secrecy. Join our DAILY ZOOM MEETING to share your ideas and suggestions.
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations" is a thought-provoking blog that sheds light on the importance of involving the global community in shaping health regulations. It emphasizes the need for inclusivity and collective decision-making in a world interconnected by health crises. An insightful read that encourages us to rethink how international health standards are crafted https://www.prettislim.com/articles/laws-of-attraction-5-secrets-of-visualization/
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations" is an insightful read that emphasizes the importance of involving communities in shaping global health policies. Empowering individuals and communities to actively contribute to these regulations ensures a more comprehensive and effective response to health crises. It's inspiring to see efforts to make these regulations more inclusive and representative of the diverse voices and needs around the world. A step in the right direction for a healthier, more equitable future! https://greensunwellness.com/blogs/news/the-fiber-connection-boosting-digestive-health
Hi James, I support your efforts to fight against the WHO health regulations, however, our fight suffers from an incorrect understanding of the limits of treaty-making power.
It's true that Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, and that every elected official swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. However, if a treaty (or agreement or covenant) undermines a provision of the US Constitution, as does the WHO health regulations, then SCOTUS has already ruled that such a treaty is invalid, since it would constitute, in effect, an amendment to the Constitution without going through the Article V amendment process. Article V requires approval of amendments by three-fourths of the state legislatures, which is a higher bar than treaties, which require merely two-thirds approval by the Senate and the president's signature.
Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this in the Harvard Law Review in 2014 in an article "Limits on the Treaty Power".
...Nor can treaties violate independent constitutional bars. For example, if the President, with Senate approval, entered into a self-executing treaty that banned all political speech, that treaty would be invalid as contrary to the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A four-Justice plurality acknowledged this principle in Reid v. Covert,95 holding that treaties authorizing military commission trials of American citizens abroad on military bases could not displace Fifth and Sixth Amendment criminal procedure rights.96 Justice Black, joined by Chief Justice Warren, Justice Douglas, and Justice Brennan, recognized:
[N]o 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.
. . . There is nothing in [Article VI, the Supremacy Clause,] (“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;”) which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. . . . It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V [the Amendment Process]. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.97
In the Bond litigation, the Obama Administration appears to agree that treaties cannot violate “the Constitution’s express prohibitions (such as those in the Bill of Rights).”98
95. 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
96. Id. at 15—19 (plurality opinion).
97. Id. at 16—17 (footnote omitted).
98. Brief for the United States at 46, Bond v. United States, No. 12-158 (U.S. Aug. 9, 2013).
In light of Senator Cruz' argument and the SCOTUS ruling, in my opinion this is where the battle should be fought. We should not accept treaty ratification as a fait accompli without challenging it in the courts, using the Reid v. Covert case as precedent, and also the Obama administration's concession in Bond v. United States. It's simply not true that any treaty which is ratified by the Senate and signed by the president is the supreme law of the land. It must not overturn existing provisions of the Constitution. To assert otherwise is to allow the government to abridge our rights by fraud and for the people to give up their rights without a fight.
What we have discovered over these last few years is that there is no such thing as "public health," no matter how we choose to define it. All health is an individual decision and individual weighing of risk and benefit. The internal contradictions and hypocrisy of "authorities" who have claimed to promote our public health reveals the true intent of these public measures-whipping up fear and anxiety to divide and destroy the human spirit. We are indeed in midst of a great spiritual war.
Instead of remarking on the proposed amendments, I offer the following poem:
Why should we have amendments to an illegitimate process? This effort is null and void as there is no democratic participation and WHO is an illegitimate nonstate terrorist actor.
James please can you add this to the workspace under the discussion we had on meeting #8 about the Hypocratic Oath: diet = way of life.
“What does the word “diet” mean to you? The word actually comes from the Greek word “diaita,” which means “way of life.” For many people, however, it means following a specific food plan to lose weight.” It stressed an oath to proposing recommendations for the tailored benefit of the health of an individual, not the modern day meaning of nutritional intake.
I submit the following amendment in brackets for consideration to Article 2: Purpose and scopeCURRENT TEXT:
The purpose and scope of these [recommendations] are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.
I am duty bound to live my country (while fighting any evil any American individual will do). As a Catholic, I piss on any Globalists institution that dares to assert any power over America or me.
I’ve always been bothered by the way "Safe and effective" continues to be used in reference to these shots. Not just because it is propaganda, but because safe and effective are two entirely different things. Some may consider these shots ineffective, yet safe, and vice versa. Yet, the terms always appear together, as if if one is true, so must be the other.
An “ill person” poses a “public health risk.” But an asymptomatic individual is ill, yet poses no risk in this context. We’ve seen “ill” people quarantined for no good reason throughout the pandemic. It’d be nice to have some clarity on who might be considered ill enough to pose a public health risk.
In the Annex 2 decision tree, I’m concerned about notification regarding “Any event of potential international public health concern . . .” This seems pretty broad to me. Some have suggested that shootings are an international health concern. Could this language be used to circumvent our second amendment rights?
Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by James Roguski
I LOVE THIS. You are showing a true populist correction to these nonstate actors who are terrorists. Globalists are merely nonstate actors. They may tell states what to do, but they have no legitimacy as they are nonstate actor terrorists. Hence, what you brilliant and lovely people have done is to show that the people are fully competent to manage their own affairs and to show that the WHO is a rogue terrorist force and every state must withdraw from it.
If those states will not withdraw, we owe no duty of tax or loyalty to that state, as it takes orders from a rogue terrorist nonstate actor. This is my personal view but this is what is demanded of us.
'International' ANYTHING holds ZERO 'authority' over ANY SOVEREIGN NATION! PERIOD! END of discussion! These UN-ELECTED Nobodies CANNOT Dictate what a FREE HUMAN does, or does not do, in their Sovereign Nation! I do NOT accept ANYTHING that these Psychopaths spew; nor will I comply.
I just added a section near the bottom of the article entitled "WORK SPACE". In this area I have temporarily placed all the suggestions that I have received from readers so far. It takes a while to consider each potential definition and get it into the format that aligns with the way definitions are currently worded in the IHR. Also, I want to give each definition some serious thought before adding it into the list.
For those who are interested, please take the time to review the "pending" definitions in the WORK SPACE and feel free to give me your feedback.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by James Roguski
I'm doing my bit to ensure the public are aware! If 'LIABILITY' for vax makers was reinstated as a basic requirement for public safety, Covid & DEADLY VAX would disappear overnight! Vax makers were 'LIABLE' until 1976 when they negotiated (with President Ford) a 'TEMPORARY' relaxation of their moral responsibilities related to an 'Experimental' Swine Flu injection which also became a deadly disaster. After 50+ post Vax US DEATHS the 'EXPERIMENT was deemed "Too Dangerous" and abandoned. But somehow 'Temporary' became 'PERMANENT' and a 'LICENCE to KILL' Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed & Ready.
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations" is a thought-provoking blog that sheds light on the importance of involving the global community in shaping health regulations. It emphasizes the need for inclusivity and collective decision-making in a world interconnected by health crises. An insightful read that encourages us to rethink how international health standards are crafted https://www.prettislim.com/articles/laws-of-attraction-5-secrets-of-visualization/
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations" is an insightful read that emphasizes the importance of involving communities in shaping global health policies. Empowering individuals and communities to actively contribute to these regulations ensures a more comprehensive and effective response to health crises. It's inspiring to see efforts to make these regulations more inclusive and representative of the diverse voices and needs around the world. A step in the right direction for a healthier, more equitable future! https://greensunwellness.com/blogs/news/the-fiber-connection-boosting-digestive-health
Hi James, I support your efforts to fight against the WHO health regulations, however, our fight suffers from an incorrect understanding of the limits of treaty-making power.
It's true that Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, and that every elected official swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. However, if a treaty (or agreement or covenant) undermines a provision of the US Constitution, as does the WHO health regulations, then SCOTUS has already ruled that such a treaty is invalid, since it would constitute, in effect, an amendment to the Constitution without going through the Article V amendment process. Article V requires approval of amendments by three-fourths of the state legislatures, which is a higher bar than treaties, which require merely two-thirds approval by the Senate and the president's signature.
Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this in the Harvard Law Review in 2014 in an article "Limits on the Treaty Power".
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/
by Senator Ted Cruz
Here's an excerpt:
...Nor can treaties violate independent constitutional bars. For example, if the President, with Senate approval, entered into a self-executing treaty that banned all political speech, that treaty would be invalid as contrary to the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A four-Justice plurality acknowledged this principle in Reid v. Covert,95 holding that treaties authorizing military commission trials of American citizens abroad on military bases could not displace Fifth and Sixth Amendment criminal procedure rights.96 Justice Black, joined by Chief Justice Warren, Justice Douglas, and Justice Brennan, recognized:
[N]o 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.
. . . There is nothing in [Article VI, the Supremacy Clause,] (“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;”) which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. . . . It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V [the Amendment Process]. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.97
In the Bond litigation, the Obama Administration appears to agree that treaties cannot violate “the Constitution’s express prohibitions (such as those in the Bill of Rights).”98
95. 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
96. Id. at 15—19 (plurality opinion).
97. Id. at 16—17 (footnote omitted).
98. Brief for the United States at 46, Bond v. United States, No. 12-158 (U.S. Aug. 9, 2013).
In light of Senator Cruz' argument and the SCOTUS ruling, in my opinion this is where the battle should be fought. We should not accept treaty ratification as a fait accompli without challenging it in the courts, using the Reid v. Covert case as precedent, and also the Obama administration's concession in Bond v. United States. It's simply not true that any treaty which is ratified by the Senate and signed by the president is the supreme law of the land. It must not overturn existing provisions of the Constitution. To assert otherwise is to allow the government to abridge our rights by fraud and for the people to give up their rights without a fight.
Ari Goldberg
Hi James. Yes, you can link my suggestion for a pandemic treaty here. Link to: https://drvitor.substack.com/p/a-pandemic-treaty-for-the-who Thanks.
What we have discovered over these last few years is that there is no such thing as "public health," no matter how we choose to define it. All health is an individual decision and individual weighing of risk and benefit. The internal contradictions and hypocrisy of "authorities" who have claimed to promote our public health reveals the true intent of these public measures-whipping up fear and anxiety to divide and destroy the human spirit. We are indeed in midst of a great spiritual war.
Instead of remarking on the proposed amendments, I offer the following poem:
and they stood by the mountain
as one soul
with one heart,
with one mind
together
we share,
we express
the collective
of our individual space,
our godly essence
connected to the Source
-the One-
all that is
united-
we are whole,
indivisible
in the infinite space
we join with each other
we make not
a crowd
of the faceless,
of the nameless,
indistinguishable-
numbers, data, mass
for there is place
for each one
to overflow
unrestricted, undiminished
in the eternal,
in individual harmony,
as one
and they shall all form
one group,
to do your will
Why should we have amendments to an illegitimate process? This effort is null and void as there is no democratic participation and WHO is an illegitimate nonstate terrorist actor.
James please can you add this to the workspace under the discussion we had on meeting #8 about the Hypocratic Oath: diet = way of life.
“What does the word “diet” mean to you? The word actually comes from the Greek word “diaita,” which means “way of life.” For many people, however, it means following a specific food plan to lose weight.” It stressed an oath to proposing recommendations for the tailored benefit of the health of an individual, not the modern day meaning of nutritional intake.
I submit the following amendment in brackets for consideration to Article 2: Purpose and scopeCURRENT TEXT:
The purpose and scope of these [recommendations] are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
Local, local, local. The nation is highest political unit... But most decisions should be made by city or county.
And family is sacrosanct
I am duty bound to live my country (while fighting any evil any American individual will do). As a Catholic, I piss on any Globalists institution that dares to assert any power over America or me.
I’ve always been bothered by the way "Safe and effective" continues to be used in reference to these shots. Not just because it is propaganda, but because safe and effective are two entirely different things. Some may consider these shots ineffective, yet safe, and vice versa. Yet, the terms always appear together, as if if one is true, so must be the other.
An “ill person” poses a “public health risk.” But an asymptomatic individual is ill, yet poses no risk in this context. We’ve seen “ill” people quarantined for no good reason throughout the pandemic. It’d be nice to have some clarity on who might be considered ill enough to pose a public health risk.
In the Annex 2 decision tree, I’m concerned about notification regarding “Any event of potential international public health concern . . .” This seems pretty broad to me. Some have suggested that shootings are an international health concern. Could this language be used to circumvent our second amendment rights?
May be we should ask the purpose of this organisation and what their regulations are and their goals.
I LOVE THIS. You are showing a true populist correction to these nonstate actors who are terrorists. Globalists are merely nonstate actors. They may tell states what to do, but they have no legitimacy as they are nonstate actor terrorists. Hence, what you brilliant and lovely people have done is to show that the people are fully competent to manage their own affairs and to show that the WHO is a rogue terrorist force and every state must withdraw from it.
If those states will not withdraw, we owe no duty of tax or loyalty to that state, as it takes orders from a rogue terrorist nonstate actor. This is my personal view but this is what is demanded of us.
'International' ANYTHING holds ZERO 'authority' over ANY SOVEREIGN NATION! PERIOD! END of discussion! These UN-ELECTED Nobodies CANNOT Dictate what a FREE HUMAN does, or does not do, in their Sovereign Nation! I do NOT accept ANYTHING that these Psychopaths spew; nor will I comply.
TO ALL:
I just added a section near the bottom of the article entitled "WORK SPACE". In this area I have temporarily placed all the suggestions that I have received from readers so far. It takes a while to consider each potential definition and get it into the format that aligns with the way definitions are currently worded in the IHR. Also, I want to give each definition some serious thought before adding it into the list.
For those who are interested, please take the time to review the "pending" definitions in the WORK SPACE and feel free to give me your feedback.
I'm doing my bit to ensure the public are aware! If 'LIABILITY' for vax makers was reinstated as a basic requirement for public safety, Covid & DEADLY VAX would disappear overnight! Vax makers were 'LIABLE' until 1976 when they negotiated (with President Ford) a 'TEMPORARY' relaxation of their moral responsibilities related to an 'Experimental' Swine Flu injection which also became a deadly disaster. After 50+ post Vax US DEATHS the 'EXPERIMENT was deemed "Too Dangerous" and abandoned. But somehow 'Temporary' became 'PERMANENT' and a 'LICENCE to KILL' Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed & Ready.