Hi 25° | Lo 19°

Letter: States are not obligated to adhere to EPA rules

Once again, the American people are being told of phantoms that do not exist. Both President Obama and the EPA have presented a specious argument laden with lies and falsehoods in reference to the new emission rules. Yesterday the hobgoblin was terrorist threats to the nation; today it is climate change and that if the government does not act, the earth will burn up.

The president plans to act where the Congress has failed to take the initiative. In essence, Obama plans to circumvent the Constitution. It is not the responsibility or within the authority of the Congress to take up legislation on climate change. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, pointed out that the powers of the federal government are few and defined.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Clean Air Act, the states are not under any obligation to adhere to the EPA’s rules.

Under the original articles of the Constitution, the states did not grant any authority to the federal government to legislate in matters pertaining to the environment. The states reserved that power to themselves. But, more important, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to expand or determine the powers of the federal government as it is the creature of the states that created it.

The states are sovereign and therefore they are the final arbiter of the Constitution. It is time for the states to reassert their authority and strangle an out of control federal government.



Legacy Comments11

Show of hands for anyone that read Brucies screeds

nice cut and paste filibuster Brucie

Mr. Perry calls climate change a phantom that does not exist, and claims that the EPA and Obama have presented “lies and falsehoods in reference to the new emission rules.” Perhaps Mr. Perry should enlighten us as to what exactly those lies and falsehoods are that 97% of climate scientists are presenting to us as they report their findings on the state of our changing climate. As for his claims regarding the Constitution: they may not be spurious as are his claims on the science, but I think they are contradicted by common sense and a proper understanding of history and the Constitution. He claims that under the Constitution, the EPA has no authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and that such powers are reserved for the states. This claim requires a crabbed and limited reading AND interpretation of both the Constitution and history. In fact, almost ALL claims regarding what the Constitution “means” require interpretation and judgement—contrary to what “originalist” and “strict constructionist” adherents may claim. Otherwise there would be little need for judges or Constitutional law classes. The Preamble itself refers to securing “the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” No less an authority than Chief Justice Marshall, writing in “Sturges v. Crowninshield” in 1819, said that “the spirit of an instrument, especially of a Constitution, is to be respected not less than its words, yet the spirit is collected chiefly from its words.” The Preamble—the opening lines of our Constitution, as quoted above, directly references the duty of our national government to protect the interests of “our posterity”. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in Article 6 requires that the states must follow the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as “the supreme law of the land”. This clause pertains only if Congress is acting in pursuance of its authorized powers. Perry claims that the environment is not a mandated concern for Congress or the federal government. But the courts have long given Congress wide latitude under the phrase “general welfare” to both regulate and to tax. And again, the Preamble’s reference to “posterity” needs to be remembered. The Constitution was meant to be a sustainable document, and there is nothing sustainable about our addiction to fossil fuels. Perry also refers to James Madison, who said, writing in Federalist #44, said that if supremacy of the federal government was not established "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members". That appears to be Perry’s preference, but clearly was not Madison’s, to whom he approvingly refers. A 2007 SCOTUS decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, affirmed the EPA’s right to regulate greenhouse gases in new cars. Writing in dissent, and referring to the Clean Air Act, under which the EPA claims its authority to regulate GHGs, Antonin Scalia said: “This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency.” In other words, Scalia saw NO conflict between this law and Congress’ constitutionally-mandated powers. The Court has yet to decide whether the EPA has the specific authority to regulate power plants and other point source emitters of GHGs, but it is unlikely to overturn its 2007 decision. Nothing in science, law, or politics since 2007 justifies any changes to the EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs. To the contrary, the urgency with which the nation must act has only become greater.

The incessant hyperbole that "97% of climate scientists" has been revealed many times that it was 77 scientists. So please drop the propaganda bit. Moreover read this article: It may not be that the EPA does not have the right to impose opressive regulations but if they should. It will cost oil and coal jobs and is akin to throwing our economy out like the baby with the bath water.

It's fact, not hyperbole. There have been at least 6 different studies (not including this one) looking at the literature over the last decade, and all arrive at a figure in the high nineties for consensus. These numbers are derived from the hundreds, if not thousands of papers published during this time, and used a variety of methods to derive their results. Deniers have been free to conduct their own survey of the literature, but won't because it would disprove their claims. So all they can do is distort and mislead--as usual. Just like the Tobacco Lobby before them. Even one of the critics of another recent study, Richard Tol (an economist), admits the figure on AGW consensus is above 90%. As for that Forbes article, it cherry-picked convenient facts to suit its preconceptions. From p. 15 of the actual study cited by Forbes: “Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicate they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” (p15) How convenient of Forbes to neglect that fact. BTW: meteorologists are not necessarily well informed on climate science. Two examples come to mind: Joe Bastani and WUWT.

"Throwing our economy out like the baby with the bath water" is exactly what the fossil fuels industry is doing--as it continues to support the denier lobby financially despite knowing better (oil company scientists told the oil companies years ago that climate change was for real and they were the cause. Their obsession with short term profits over long-term sustainability calls into question the sustainability of capitalism itself, as they continue to ignore the warming of climate science.. As for solar and wind power, wind power capacity in the U.S. now exceeds 60 gigawatts, surpassing predictions that it would take until 2020 to reach 40 gigawatts. Prices on photovoltaic panels have dropped over 80% in 5 years. When solar competes fairly with fossil fuels--that is when the true cost of fossil fuels use is reflected in pricing--solar will truly take off, and we'll see solar on rooftops everywhere (even yours). Reflecting the inherent advantages solar has when the field is leveled, the majority of Obama's $90 billion stimulus investment in clean energy has paid off--most of the investments are doing well, and the private sector is now building solar without federal loans--because it's cheaper.


Dear moderator .... can I filibuster like Brucie and not get moderated?

Filibustering? Try writing coherently and factually. There's the rub.

if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’ Margaret Thatcher If leftists didn't support their arguments with outrageous lies they couldn't argue at all and would just have to shut up. And what a better place this country would be.

In my opinion your comments are a filibuster against common sense already.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.