Share this article
  • The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the regulation of healthcare falls to the states. For example, doctors, pharmacies and hospitals are administered by the state, not by the federal government.
  • This is why Louisiana’s Senate unanimously passed a bill 37 to zero telling the world that neither the WHO, the UN nor the WEF could assert any jurisdiction over health or any other matter in the state of Louisiana.
  • This is why the Florida legislature passed a bill last year allowing the WHO no authority over the state of Florida.
  • On the last full day of the Obama administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control issued a Final Rule that changed the definition of a Public Health Emergency of international Concern. It was to be defined 5 ways, but 3 of those ways relied on a WHO decision.
  • This rule was challenged in a petition to DHHS by 15 state Attorneys General in 2023. They pointed out that, “The rule exceeds the agency’s authority and infringes on US and state sovereignty by unlawfully delegating to the World Health Organization the authority to invoke health emergency powers solely based on decisions of the WHO.”
  • The AGs further noted that Congress’ assent would be needed to delegate such authority via treaty ratification to the WHO. They assert that executive agreements, which “rely solely on the President’s authority in foreign relations… lack any domestic effect without an act of Congress,” and that the unratified WHO Constitution is not a binding treaty.
  • Furthermore, according to the AGs, Congress approved participation with the WHO “with the understanding that nothing in the Constitution of the World Health Organization in any manner commits the United States to enact any specific legislative program regarding any matters referred to in said constitution,” referencing 22 U.S.C. 290d, while noting that 42 U.S.C. 264 (e) warns the federal government not to preempt state powers regarding control of infectious diseases.
  • Finally, when the US federal government signed the WHO’s amended International Health Regulations in 2006, it filed a reservation acknowledging the states’ rights authority over some health matters. The reservation said, in part, “… these regulations to be implemented by the Federal Government or the state governments, as appropriate and in accordance with our Constitution, to the extent that the implementation of these obligations comes under the legal jurisdiction of the Federal Government. To the extent that such obligations come under the legal jurisdiction of the state governments, the Federal Government shall bring such obligations with a favorable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate state authorities.

Therefore, there is a strong legal basis to assert that the states not only have authority over their citizens’ healthcare regulation, but that the federal government lacks the authority to delegate any such power to the WHO.

Meryl Nass, MD

March 31, 2024

Similar Posts

  • Sovereign Sustenance: Reviving Native Traditions For Food Security and Healing

    Share this article

    Share this article Richard C. Cook Richard C. Cook presents an in-depth look into food sovereignty efforts within…

  • How to Protect Your Food and Medical Freedoms

    Share this article

    In my previous six articles series, we looked at the global war on farmers, the organizations pushing for the Great Food Reset, the tactics used to foist these changes on the public, the projects underway to remove your access to healthy, farm-fresh foods, the mRNA, RNA, and DNA gene therapies entering our food supply, and how the One Health agenda threatens to destroy both food freedom and medical freedom. 
    So what can we do about it? 
    The good news is that there are many things we can do.

  • Central Banks Want CBDCs | Prof Richard Werner | BIG PICTURE

    Share this article

    As part of the upcoming film CBDC: The End of Money, I interviewed renowned economist and professor Richard Werner.

    Professor Werner is the father of the monetary policy concept of quantitative easing, the author of the best-selling book Princes of the Yen: Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy, and the writer of an important paper on the actual operations of banks.

  • The UN’s New Political Declaration on Pandemics

    Share this article

    On September 20th our representatives meeting at the United Nations (UN) will sign off on a ‘Declaration’ titled: “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.” This was announced as a ‘silence procedure,’ meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text.