46 senators now support bill requiring senate approval for WHO pandemic 'treaty'

Forty-five U.S. senators have now co-sponsored Senator Ron Johnson's bill declaring the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty to be a “treaty” as the term is used in the Constitution thus requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve before the United States would be obligated to follow the provisions of the agreement. With Senator Johnson, this brings the number of the bill's supporters to 46.

The three Republican senators who have yet to sign on as co-sponsors are Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. None of the 48 Democrats and three Independents in the Senate has signed on leaving its future in doubt. Even if five more senators vote in favor of the bill, and if it also wins a majority in the House, it would still require Joe Biden's signature to become law. The absence of his signature would mean that the bill is vetoed.

To override a Biden veto, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to vote in favor of the override.  

SCOTUS to the rescue?

Even in the absence of this bill, though, any Biden agreement that gives the WHO decision making powers over US citizens could be challenged in court by applying the very standards set forth in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual for determining whether an international agreement is a treaty. The manual explicitly cautions that “the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the Senate, and the Congress as a whole." The manual then lists criteria for determining whether an international agreement is a treaty.  The following criteria from the manual are cited in the text of Johnson's bill.

1. Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws
2. Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress
3. The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole.
4. The proposed duration of the agreement

How does the WHO document square with these criteria?

1. The WHO's Pandemic Preparedness Treaty is very much a treaty according to these criteria. It not only affects state laws, it contradicts the First Amendment:

The Parties commit to increase science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects, and tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation. [P. 23; emphases added].

2. The treaty does not depend on Congress passing laws agreeing with its provisions. In addition, Congress is barred from passing any law that the WHO determines would damage citizens of other nations: 

States have . . . the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries. [Pp 10-11; emphases added].

3. The Heritage Foundation notes the considerable commitments required by the treaty:

[T]he scope of the treaty is enormous, committing parties to providing funding, enacting policies, and adopting legislation and other measures not just during a pandemic but during “inter-pandemic times.”

4. Finally, the treaty is very much long-term, as it provides an “Entry into force” date of 30 days after the 30th nation ratifies it, but provides no end date (P. 31).

An additional criterion is the “preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement.” The preference in this case would be to consider the WHO agreement a treaty if Johnson's bill passes.

We don't trust you

The text of the bill not only demands that the treaty be presented to the Senate for a two-thirds vote, but lays out the distrust of a large portion of the population for the WHO:

It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) a significant segment of the American public is deeply skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership, and its independence from the pernicious political influence of certain member states, including the People's Republic of China;

(2) the Senate strongly prefers that any agreement related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB [Intergovernmental Negotiating Body] be considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring;

(3) the scope of the agreement which the INB has been tasked with drafting, as outlined by the Director-General, is so broad that any application of the [relevant factors] will weigh strongly in favor of it being considered a treaty; and

(4) given the level of public distrust, any relevant new agreement by the World Health Assembly which cannot garner the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification should not be agreed to or implemented by the United States. [Emphases added].

If anything, that distrust is understated as Frontline News has pointed out, and a growing number of Americans are aware, the WHO is headed by a Marxist accused of terrorism.

UK too

Outside the US as well legislators are attempting to block the treaty from taking effect. MP Andrew Bridgen requested an urgent debate in Parliament on the pandemic treaty explaining that the treaty seeks to give the WHO “huge powers" over UK citizens including the power to call pandemics, enforce lockdowns and vaccinations, and decide themselves when a pandemic is over.