Citizens Take Charge
at the State and Local Level
In general, laws relating to health belong at the state and local level, both under the Constitution and under the related natural desire for self-rule over this intimate area of our life. In a world of ongoing intrusions into our health freedom, US states must continue to change laws as needed, and citizens must stay engaged at every level of government.
Overlapping jurisdictions since 1,000 AD
Today in the USA, a typical person may be under the jurisdiction of a town, a county, a state, and the federal government all at the same time. The concept of overlapping, concurrent legal jurisdictions goes back at least to the development of separate courts for the church and the king in Europe, circa 1,000 AD. Since the powers of cities and counties are considered portions of state powers, in the US key constitutional and legal debates center around the relationship between individual states and the federal government.
States retain legal and practical power
As we discussed back in January, while our federal government was originally intended to have sharply-limited powers, since the early 20th century the Supreme Court has allowed vast increases in the power of the central government, based largely on the Commerce Clause to the United States Constitution. Despite this growth in federal power, states still have both broad legal/Constitutional authority, as well as the practical ability to “thumb their nose” at the national government in some circumstances. The later can be seen, e.g., when states legalize cannabis, or propose GMO labeling stricter than federal standards, despite federal law that says they can’t do this.
International jurisdiction
Another level of jurisdiction is at the international level. The United Nations and numerous other global bodies exercise certain powers as agreed to by various countries. And when the US signs on to international agreements, they can have the force of law, depending on addendums added to those agreements by individual countries that protect the independence and sovereignty of the country (i.e. US sovereignty addendum to International Health Regulations). At the same time, there is not yet a general “one-world government,” despite the aspirations for, and fear of, such a future possibility.
And while continuing economic, social, and cultural integration is no doubt inevitable given technology developments, current political realities, and population growth, whether the world order we end up with is one of freedom and health or one of technocratic totalitarianism is an open question.
Louisiana and Oklahoma prohibit international mandates
Two states recently passed laws attempting to prevent any future coercion by global health organizations. In Louisiana, SB133 enacts that the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction or power in Louisiana. And no rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the any state entity.
Oklahoma’s similar SB426 says that the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum have no jurisdiction in Oklahoma. State entities may not be compelled to impose mandates from these organizations. Such mandates may not supersede state laws and shall have no force or effect. Whether these laws will be upheld by the courts is not clear, both because of constitutional limits to state power under Article I and because of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, as explained by the Congressional Research Service.
City of Alameda, California says “no” to geoengineering experiment
We recently reported on the issue of geoengineering. While pervasive use has been dismissed as conspiracy by some, many of these efforts have been out in the open.
The Center for International Environmental Law reported on June 5 about the city of Alameda’s decision to say no to a contentious experiment in geoengineering, “echoing concerns from civil society organizations from across the world.” In a unanimous June 4 vote, the City Council in this California town voted down this proposal for “Marine Cloud Brightening,” “a form of solar radiation modification that involves spraying saltwater particles into the air to thicken or brighten clouds, theoretically increasing their reflectivity and partially blocking the sun’s rays.”
Avoiding “the slippery slope to deployment.”
Apparently, this technology could “reverse the climate crisis” while creating a new one with added hurricanes and flooding across the globe. It could also lead to unmanageable salt deposits on the land and impact marine life via the massive amount of seawater that were to be used. According to CIEL, “on May 29, 2024, more than 70 groups called on governments to prevent outdoor marine geoengineering experiments from taking place, to avoid the legitimization of this dangerous distraction to real climate action and avoid the slippery slope to deployment.”
This case shows how a city can wield power using permitting, zoning, and other laws. And the decision should inspire the next town in which they try to place this “experimental” Marine Cloud Brightening project.
Protection of health freedom going forward
From the town hall to the halls of Congress in Washington, DC, health freedom activists need to be vigilant and proactive in working for laws to protect our liberty in the health arena. One great resource is the website My Reps: enter your address, and you will get a list of your city, county, state, and federal representatives and officials. Getting involved in your local government on behalf of health freedom is an important way to help protect your community.
RECENT NEWS
