Louisiana has become the first state in the US to pass a bill
to end the influence of the United Nations, World Health Organization
and World Economic Forum in the state and ban the globalist
organizations from imposing rules and mandates.
The Louisiana Senate passed a bill in a a 37-0 vote
to end state and local cooperation with the UN, WHO and WEF, accusing
them of launching a globalist coup d’etat and attempting to impose their
rules and mandates around the world.
Sen. Thomas Pressly and two co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 133 (SB133) on Feb. 29. The proposed law declares, “The
World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum
shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana.”
The bill outlines practical steps to ensure that rules, regulations,
and mandates of the globalist organizations will have no power in the
Pelican State.
“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 state of Louisiana or any
agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision,
governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other
political entity.”
EFFECTIVE
Tenth Amendment Center report: Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union”
provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws,
effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help,
support, and leadership from the states.
This is just as true when it comes to international bodies – probably
more. These institutions have no enforcement mechanism of their own.
All of their power is based on voluntary compliance and enforcement by
local jurisdictions.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this
type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion
on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate
with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to
implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts. By
simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in
effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s
Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “States are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
This enforcement problem is magnified when it comes to international bodies such as the WHO and the UN.
LEGAL BASIS
Some might argue that Louisiana is obligated to enforce WHO or UN
mandates due to treaties, but this doesn’t state up to legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government
can’t commandeer state and local resources for its own purposes.
Under the anti-commandeering doctrine,
states are sovereign entities and can direct their resources as they
see fit. It logically follows that international organizations can’t
commander state and local resources either. Even if the U.S. government
is obligated to enforce some U.N. mandate based on a treaty, it doesn’t
follow that state and local governments must also enforce the same.
The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to
enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’
officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives
requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the
States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to
administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not
whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the
burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally
incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to
invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can
refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether
they are constitutional or not.
WHAT’S NEXT
SB133 will move to the House for further consideration. It was
referred to the Committee on House and Governmental Affairs where it
must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in
the legislative process.
(Article by Baxter Dmitry republished from ThePeoplesVoice.tv)
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Planet Today
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.planet-today.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.