Surreality: CARB contemplating a "skeptical science" regulation with penalties

We’re doomed if radicals like this ever control all our lives. Doomed.lol

Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.
REPLY: If I can, yes.

Several years ago I was offered a job in California, 6 figures, to be an environmental compliance manager for a large company. I laughed and said no. Smartest thing I ever did.

California Uber Alles!
“Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
Close your eyes, can’t happen here
Big Bro’ on white horse is near
The hippies won’t come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!”
Lyrics taken from: http://www.azlyrics.com

Sounds like the question of whether something is “false” could end up in court. That might not be a bad thing — discovery on both sides; full outlay of relevant information on both sides before the court; etc.
I agree with you that CARB is making a mistake with this, but I’m not sure they would want to actually pursue the policy to the end. Too much light could be shed.

Just one minor change required:
Proposed 17 CCR §95020
Prohibition on false statements
(a) In any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board, no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner with the Board or the Board’s staff:
(1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
(3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or
(4) omit material facts from a communication with an intent to mislead.
(b) “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.
(c) “Communicating, communication” includes speaking, writing or submitting any information to the Board or the Board’s staff.
(d) A fact is “material” if it is necessary to make the communication, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading.
(e) Each communication forbidden by this section constitutes a separate violation of this section.
(f) This section and any penalty resulting from its violation are in addition to all other laws of this state.
(g) This section shall not be the basis for any private right of action.
(g) This section shall equally apply to Board or Board’s staff communications to the Public.

Can’t this be turned around – against these fascists ?
Since it is the AGW’ers who are knowingly lying and deceiving, cant we take them to court using these laws ?
I know it wont fly now – but give this another year or two, for scepticism to grow, and it will be they who will be looking at jail sentances.

I read the “Text of Proposed Regulation”.
I do not see a clause that would allow it to apply retoactivly so the CAGW people are in the clear, as are all of the things CARB itself has done in the past.
I expect that in future they will point to the information received in the past and say that the information must be true since it would have been against the law to accept lies.
If you can get to the meeting be sure to bring the entire FOIA download on a CD and anything else you can think of and pass it to the chair of the meeting and get the receipt of the information by the chair entered into the minutes of the meeting.
Good luck.
PS. Of possible being a lawyer versed in the procedural protocols in place for this type of meeting.

Lady Justice holds a double edge sword. It cuts both way

Heart before mind; it’s at work here.
CARB folks, your belief is incontrovertible, your motives are beyond reproach.
Is it just, perhaps, maybe even slightly possible that you’re confusing the “what may happen” with the “what will happen” and are taking the path of least resistance by conforming to the consensus that, ignoring the uncertainties, has more than one litter in the fight?
Just a thought: no more than a question. Is that a problem?
If, by asking, I’m the problem then yes; Houston, we do have a problem.

Nothing whets a politicians appetite more than the prospect of being the final arbiter of truth, justice, and my way or the hiway.

Political chaos is connected with the decay of language…
George Orwell

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
George Orwell

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
George Orwell
Lies=Truth Truth=Lies

As your neighbor living in Nevada (with a business office in Arizona), I’m impress with how many small businesses and families have relocated to Nevada and Arizona from California in the past five to ten years. With California government clowns sticking it to small business and residents, it’s just a matter of time before the last tax payer moves out. The tipping point of tax base sustainability has already been crossed and it is just a matter of time before California’s economy completes circling the drain and disappears into it.

One can only wonder how far this can go before one country or one state bolts the pack. I’m not talking about a China or an India saying screw it, we’ll do what ever we want. I’m talking about states or countries with modern economies and industrial capacity. Let’s imagine for example the consequences of all of the US adopting the direction California is going by federal mandate, and the result is Texas secedes. Can you imagine the conversation?
President; take your dirty filthy oil and stuff it. We’re not buying any of it and we’re going green.
Texas; Thanks. We agree to keep our oil. We’re also keeping all these manufacturing companies who are relocating their factories here and bringing all their employees. Shortens the supply chain, more profit for everyone.
President; Hey! You can’t take those!
Texas; Huh? You said they were dirty and you didn’t want them…
President; I said they were dirty and they should go green!
Texas; Well, they decided that wouldn’t work for them, they want to go… uhm…color of oil.
President; I’ll call out the army!
Texas; OK, deal. Of course they are out of fuel so they will have to walk. Those solar powered tanks didn’t work out so well did they, and frankly, the wind powered fighter jets are just pathetic. Oh, by the way, we have an alliance with Canada, they have 6 fighter jets and an armored jeep so you are pretty much outgunned. They got the same problem with you that we do.
President; what’s that?
Texas; Border control. We’re tired of dealing with all the illegal immigrants sneaking across the border and working for almost nothing…

Time for Californians to get the tumbrels rolling and clean up their self-annointed “elites”.

The problem is: The People’s Republic of Kalifornia is a huge portion of the US economy.
It is now a cancer eating away at the country from within. If enough of us cannot stand together, drive the right agenda at the federal level, and eventually forcibly halt this self destroying progression, CA threatens to take out the whole country.

Ha ha the last desperate gasp of a career leech. This is desperation on top of agonizing stupidity. Bluster of the Bagdad Bob quality, next will follow desperate pleas for mercy.
You know like ,Its my first day. The scientists mislead me. Look what you made me do.Everyone who doubts me must be insane. In other words the usual BS from the lunatic libtard . Be sure to tighten the arm straps well when you take this bunch into custody for you know they are dangerous to themselves as well. This is an open admission by your CARB that they are done. Please kick them a few times for us Canadians too .On 2nd thought perhaps Canada can provide the use of an island to shelter your climate fraud experts and our proffessional nitwits. Somewhere north of 78 degrees where “its warming like never before”.

As I see it, seems to be a basic thought police tactic, very Orwellian.
It lays down punitive measures that can be called on if California’s scientific fascist police decide “this statement is a scientific lie, by our consensus, therefore you in opposing it are not a skeptic. You’re a dishonest liar and we are gonna penalize you.
Thugs, free speech means nothing to these people. I expect similar legislation to start popping up in Australia and England.

I’m part of the California sane drain. With a h/t to Bob Hope in “The Road to Casablanca” (I think) movie; Flea, Anthony Flea.

Since the term “trick” is used in the proposed regulations, I wonder if Michael Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline” of tree ring proxy temps would count as a violation.

I wonder how this law will stand up against the First Amendment Rights:
[quote]Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [b]or abridging the freedom of speech[/b], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, [b]and to petition the government for a redress of grievances[/b].[/quote]

899 said
“There’s a reason why actors should never pursue political careers: They’re actors.”
Shouldn’t that read
“There’s a reason why actors should never be allowed to pursue political careers: They’re actors.”?
Equally applies to Film Directors too. Will Jim Cameron try? Oh dear!

This might have been said above, but it bears repeating:
This is how totalitarianism is creeping its way into the USA
Please America, FIGHT for the freedom that is your birthright!
[d]

Let them. Use it and turn it against them. As you know, science is vague. Skeptics, by nature will use more affirmative statements, because we don’t assert things unless there is reason to assert. Imagine if the Himalayan glacier melt statements, or the Amazon sensitivity statements made their way to CARB. Utter jibberish and falsities. That’s precedent. Expose and use. As this issue dies(CAGW), and it is, albeit slowly and loudly, they will become more shrill and extreme. No worries on our side, many worries on theirs if this comes to pass.
My 2 cents.

the australian govt wood love this law if it gets through ,there all tomato heads all red through and through

I’d like to offer a small ray of hope here. I’m the same Roger E. Sowell referred to in the post above. I’m an attorney licensed in California, and we attorneys live for such contests as this new regulation will most likely provide. Mandatory disclaimer: nothing written above, nor in this comment is intended to be, nor is it, legal advice. Anyone requiring legal advice should consult a qualified attorney. Should this comment be accepted and posted on this blog, it is merely a private opinion discussing general aspects of a legal issue.
In a criminal case, for each element of the alleged crime, the prosecution must offer admissible evidence for and prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, if any element cannot be adequately proven, there can be no conviction. That is the reason I chose to focus on the “false” requirement, as that one will be very difficult to prove for the reasons I gave above.
An element of a crime, in this context, is each thing that must be proven for the accused person to be convicted of the crime. What I wrote in the post above actually referred to the Federal criminal statute, not the text of the California proposed regulation. The proposed regulation does not refer to Knowingly or Willfully.
However, there is the issue of whether the communication to CARB was a statement, or was it a question, or an opinion? Also, was the communication actually a fact, or was it dressed in language to indicate there are a range of uncertainties?
The proposed statute also uses the word fraudulent, which has in itself a long list of elements that must be proven. In short, a charge of fraud is very difficult to prove because the accused’s intent must be proved.
However, I agree with commenters above who wrote that this regulation could have the effect of intimidating dissenters such that they will not speak or communicate to CARB. That fact, alone, could result in the law being challenged in court as a chilling effect on what should be Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution.
It would be an interesting case, as even if all the other elements are proven to the appropriate legal standard, the “false” element may be a matter of opinion, not fact. When reputable scientists disagree, which one is to be labeled “false,” and the other “fact?” When one group agrees, and they are scientists, is another group of non-scientist dissenters not allowed to speak? The entire Climategate scandal illustrates this point. If non-scientists were muzzled, where would we be?
What is required is some brave organization, or person, who is willing to risk incarceration if convicted, to make the case before CARB that their IPPC-following science is wrong. The 60’s are upon us again. Many a protester went to jail in the 60’s in the USA to prove the strength of their beliefs.

Thanks to Anthony and all of you who have made this and other great climate truth websites a place of learning, truth and honesty. It is often difficult and sometimes feels like a full time job trying to keep up will the flow of information and has kept me awake at night looking for the answers, so I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into the fantastic articles and comment’s made by contributors. It has driven me and given me hope to keep facing the AGW gang.
OK, enough of the strokes now to some meat?
We were warned, and we warned the people of California but billionaires and movie directors bought the day with dirty green money.
HERE WAS THE HEADS UP ON WHAT WAS COMING FROM CARB!
Thanks to: Co2 INSANITY – Posted – OCT 02 2010
IF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA VOTE TO KEEP AB 32 THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER CARB MORE.
They have based regulations upon data from a supposed PH d who it turns out has a mail-order degree, better known as fraud, read here. Don’t dare to disagree with them or it may cost you your job like this poor fellow, read here. Many refer to them as the “Smog Nazis” and it’s an appropriate title as far as I’m concerned. They are in the process of and will eventually drive a lot of businesses out of California to other states where they don’t have to deal with over-regulation.
If California keeps heading down this path there may not be anyone around to pay the taxes that pay their salaries. It’s already costing jobs, read here. While that would be a fitting end to them, why sit and do nothing and let them ruin a whole state when they can be cut off now?
Do you want to know more about CARB? Here’s some information about this onerous group and some of the loony things they want to do to California?
If the citizens of California vote to keep AB 32 in force THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER THEM MORE. The government is berserk enough already and sinking into insanity territory because they keep catering to the libtard and greentard agendas. Want to stop it? Vote yes on 23 and let’s buy some time to take a better look at reality.
For full article go to:
http://co2insanity.com/2010/10/02/climate-dictatorships-arising-from-agw-ashes/

I’m an outside, and I find it curious, the double standards of the US. There goes the US with its invasive security at airports (TSA & the naked body scanners) – where everyone is treated as a criminal. And now the threat to (effectively) lock up those with a dissenting view.
In places like Burma or Zimbabwe, its clear who the tyrants are and the US makes a song-n-dance about democratic freedoms. And in its own backyard the US gives every impression of turning into a petty police state.
Ah lurve the smell ahve hypocrisy in tha morning!

Are n’t THEY contravening the US Constitution 1st Ammendment? HOW CAN THIS BE? ‘The science is settled?’…’ We’ve got you on our list?’…’Sack that editor?’ (CRU emails.)…Where are the lawyers in support of democratic free speech, where, oh, where have they gone?

This is pure comedy. This isn’t a reality series is it? Unbelievable.

It looks as if some of the nuttier folk in California want to be a small eco-fascist state? Perhaps the rest of you more sensible Americans fence it off, build a ‘berlin’ wall or whatever – and ignore them! Mind you, I would give the ‘good’ general public there the chance to leave first! I just feel sorry for the normal folk burdened with that kind of state government…….those that stay can expect their lives to be hell!

Note from Germany:
Unbelievable!
This kind of law was one basis of the NAZI/Hitler regime,
the US fortunately liberated us from.
May be it comes back to us again: Green dictatorship.

Climatology is moving dangerously down the avenue of *Crimethink”
from the Newspeak dictionary, (1984, George Orwell)
crimethink – To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death…. The essential crime that contains all others in itself.”
Here’as the complete dictionary
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

If NYC had such rules, Hansen were a target with his Hudson River forecast 20 years ago. Instead of complaining about it, we should help the bureaucracy and name the wrongsayers … Just kidding

As Jimmy Haigh said re – Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties
“Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.”
“REPLY: If I can, yes.”
I’ve just hit the tip jar to help pay for the gas.
Go get ‘em, Anthony!
Me too.
RexAlan

California’s ‘Governator’ has given up on his ambition to be president of the USA and is now, according to an article in the UK Guardian of yesterday, to be a leading conservationist when his stint as the Ruinator of California is over!!
The land of the free? Where did that idea go?

How can anyone be surprised with something like this coming from CARB?
On September 1, 2010, the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) Tire Pressure Regulation took affect. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles operating with under inflated tires by inflating them to the recommended tire pressure rating. The regulation applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Automotive service providers must meet the regulation’s following requirements:
* Check and inflate each vehicle’s tires to the recommended tire pressure rating, with air or nitrogen, as appropriate, at the time of performing any automotive maintenance or repair service.
* Indicate on the vehicle service invoice that a tire inflation service was completed and the tire pressure measurements after the service were performed.
* Perform the tire pressure service using a tire pressure gauge with a total permissible error no greater than + two (2) pounds per square inch (psi).
* Have access to a tire inflation reference that is current within three years of publication.
* Keep a copy of the service invoice for a minimum of three years, and make the vehicle service invoice available to the ARB, or its authorized representative upon request.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/tire-pressure/tire-pressure.htm

These guys should google the word “inquisition”
That would give them a few ideas of how to proceed.
Isn’t California among the United States of America any longer?

Just now made another offering to San Andreas, the patron saint of all of us who would strive to survive…

Ed Caryl says:
November 20, 2010 at 6:24 pm
“It should be pointed out to these dolts that California has lost a million jobs while Texas has gained a million. I wonder why? I second the thought; leave while you can.”
Yep. I was one of those back in 1993. Lived in southern Cali 18 years then when the cold war ended there were massive layoffs of engineers at defense plants – the “peace dividend”. Lots of us landed in Austin, TX which was undergoing a high tech boom. We called ourselves high tech refugees. You can’t swing a dead cat in Austin without hitting a high tech refugee from California. I expect there’ll be a new mass migration of green tech refugees and businesses relocating here. Benefits include no state income tax and a balanced budget which are both requirements of the state constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’m pretty sure CARB doesn’t trump federal Constitutional law.

AndiC says:
November 20, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Just thinking from Down-Under, but isn’t this proposal in direct contravention of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights?
Bob Diaz says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I wonder how this law will stand up against the First Amendment Rights:
=======================================================
I guess I could have read all of the posts first, but you guys are right, it is in direct opposition to the First amendment, by my estimation.
BTW, Bob, instead of “[” use “<"

This is how it works all over the world.
Plant your seeds beneath the surface and let them germinate.
When they start to grow, you hoe the other plants that compete with them.
Democracy does not count because they are not elected, they are appointed.
You didn’t get to vote for them because they are almost unelectable on their own.
It’s getting to be like that in many “democratic” countries.
Green and Red get into the same bed and the offspring of the relationship are no longer people, just soldiers fighting the life-long socialist war with a green tint.
You cannot fight them with democracy because they sneer at the ballot box.

For those of you who haven’t seen the movie “Brazil” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/), now is the time to do it. What used to be a Orwellian black comedy in the eighties is quickly becoming reality. Our society needs a gigantic wakeup kick in the but before it is too late.

Slabadang called 1/2 of it.
The other half is who paid for it.
Just admit it – it’s the first step in the road to recovery.
The second step is Tea in the Bay.
Chat is cheap, while you keep paying and don’t have the moral fiber to Just Say No – and mean it.

Will I get in trouble for commenting?[probably . . but not from us . . mod]

The more I see about people like the woman who controls CARB and other radical warmist organizations, the more I’m reminded of the smug nazi bastards in the Indiana Jones movies and many other movies portraying this personality type.
We truly have as much to fear from Mary Nichols, and those like her, as the world should have feared Hitler and his disciples in the late twenties and early thirties.
This is truly my opinion. So, it is not “Knowingly” “Willfully” “False” “Material”. I think I’m safe speaking my opinion. But, for how much longer. And, when they reach the position his disciples had reached by the late thirties, will opinions like this be used to help rid the world of my carbon footprint?

@James Sexton
BTW, the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure they couldn’t just ignore the first amendment.

There is enough diversity of scientific opinion (see Mr. Sowell’s “fairly fuzzy” quote) that CARB could defend virtually anything.
Therefore under this regulation the following statement would be prohibited:
“CARB has made an error”
No amount of backup support would mitigate the criminality of the statement.
In other words CARB is incapable of error and it is criminal for a person to submit a statement to the contrary. That is the purpose of this regulation.

Anthony
Actually, US Code 18 sub 1001 makes it a felony for any agent of the FEDERAL government to make false or fraudulent statements, not a member of the public.

Harry the Hacker says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:54 pm
I’m an outside, and I find it curious, the double standards of the US….
Ah lurve the smell have hypocrisy in tha morning!
_____________________________________________________________
Harry, very well said. You have pointed out the reason the Tea Party came into existence and why the Rasmussen polls show those of us in the USA have no faith in our politicians.
Voters Believe Overwhelmingly That Politicians Don’t Keep Their Promises, and Most Say It’s Deliberate
“With the campaign season in full swing, voters are more cynical than ever about the promises politicians make on the campaign trail. But Democrats are far more trusting than Republicans and unaffiliated voters.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 81% of Likely U.S. Voters now say that most politicians do not keep their campaign promises. That’s up five points from 76% in November of last year. (To see survey question wording, click here).
Only seven percent (7%) think most do keep their campaign promises….”
I think, especially with the internet, you are going to see voters in the USA keeping much closer tabs on there Reps and screaming when said Reps betray them. That is one reason why the Democrats vilify the Tea Party and the Republicans are trying to engulf them.
The tea party is a wild card not “directed” by the power elite as the official parties and the UN NGOs are. The last thing the power elite want is for ordinary citizens to wake-up, lift up the rug and see the nasty treasonous mess that is the REAL US politics.
Quote from: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/voters_believe_overwhelmingly_that_politicians_don_t_keep_their_promises_and_most_say_it_s_deliberate

Peter Miller says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm
There is something about unelected bureaucratic organisations, which once may have had a purpose and now do not, that turn them into perpetual growth machines that:…..
____________________________________________________
Peter you almost have it correct. Bureaucratic Agencies are extremely toxic to SMALL businesses. Major corporations generally place their own people in as high ranking bureaucrats and therefore get a pass for breaking the rules while small businesses are bankrupted.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/208403-wall-street-and-government-revolving-door-spins-at-dizzying-pace

Anthony,
Actually, US Code 18 sub 1001 only applies to federal AGENTS, not to the general public.

major says:
November 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Only if the law includes unfounded or dishonest statements submitted by Global Warming wackjobs (of which there are thousands)……in any case we have to be prepared to legally preempt and prosecute the CARB…..Arnold is complete fool and has completely failed the constituents who voted him in to fix things.
Could this law be tested with the following submission “The glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035”!
One could submit the last IPCC report???

This statist mentality of Arnold and his CARB is the same thing that is behind the plans to depopulate large portions of the country and return them to a wilderness state, off limits to most of the public, for the large predators, wolves and mountain lions, and native vegetative species. These people are very dangerous to our future.

Rainer Link says:
November 21, 2010 at 2:18 am
Note from Germany:
Unbelievable!
This kind of law was one basis of the NAZI/Hitler regime,
the US fortunately liberated us from.
May be it comes back to us again: Green dictatorship.
It always comes back, it never dies, it never rests, the lust for dominion is always present, and freedom requires continuous vigilance and sacrifice, as the default state for humanity is enslavement, the potential for humanity is of course – conscious adult liberty – but it requires courage and effort to attain and maintain it.

So the Emporator thinks he has some new clothes. Shame he forgot the thermal underwear.

“Also, this could easily be turned around on CARB, by asserting that the “science” they relied on in many of their regulations was false information, knowingly and willfully presented. ”
That is exactly how one fights a regulation like this. Force them to demonstrate the “truthfulness” of everything they base their regulations on.

Since when and where does a CA administrative agency get the authority to adopt rules that define and punish conduct it declares to be criminal? This power resides exclusively in the legislature. CARB’s proposed rule is usurpation of legislative authority by an executive agency. This proposed rule is unconstitutional for two reasons: violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a void attempt to formulate public policy.

Since when and where does a CA administrative agency get the authority to adopt rules that define and punish conduct it declares to be criminal? This power resides exclusively in the legislature.

Unless the legislature gives that power up to the agency as was done. This is part of the overall “progressive” agenda to put more power in the hands of career bureaucrats who can not be thrown out of office for their decisions. The only way to de-fang the agency is to de-fund it because regulations often prevent outright firing of them.
People have been rising up against them:
http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

curly says:
November 21, 2010 at 9:53 am
re; lifetime federal court appointments
At least you can choose to move out of the 9th circuit. There’s no way to escape the supreme court.
You probably know all the below by heart but others might not.
This judiciary branch can always be changed by constitutional amendment if they can anger enough of the states or the congress enough of the time. A fast-track appeal process where a state legislature can appeal a supreme court ruling to the legislatures of all the other states and if a 66% majority of the states agree then the ruling is overturned.
Two thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention anytime. Never been done before but it’s there for a purpose which I figure is it reserves ultimate power to the states and to the people. In a constitutional convention congress is cut out of the decision loop and where either amendment process is used the executive and judicial are of course cut out of the loop.
So you need 33 state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention where an amendment or amendments are floated to all 50 state legislatures Anything that 38 of those legislatures can agree on becomes a ratified amendment.
Congressional approval rating has been down in the dirt for years and dipping into the teens which suggests the needed numbers might be there to just cut them off at the knees and make some changes to the constitution with them out of the loop on it.
For one I’d like to see the commerce and general welfare clauses clarified and narrowed so it doesn’t apply to virtually anything the federal government wants to control. Grandfather entrenched federal entitlement programs for social security and medicare and make it so any grand unlimited power grabs like those in the future can only be enacted by constitutional amendment.
These things which strengthen states rights should be quite appealing to state legislatures as it basically takes power away from centralized government and gives it to them. Why would any state legislature object to increasing its own power to make decisions about the people they represent?
Time for a constitutional convention methinks. Maybe the Tea Party can get the ball rolling given how the lamestream media hangs on their every word. All it would take really, is a tweet from Sarah Palin for gosh sakes, to get the word out everywhere instantly. You betcha.
Just sayin…

well, G Galileo was nearly beheaded for his heresy. Any religion will defend its core beliefs.
Beware of the red buttons.

http://www.nationalpost.com/charity+with+plenty+very+long+tentacles/3859570/story.html
Anthony:
This may have already been mentioned but this is what we are faced with up here in BC.
It is the principle reasons I am getting more involved in provincial politics, (that and my wife won’t let us move south of the border). These people are Opportunity Thieves. They are stealing our children’s future opportunities and liberties. I can’t help but think Tides et al would be behind a lot of CARB’s activities. Lori Culbert at the Vancouver Sun already exposed (http://www.vancouversun.com/life/money+drives+social+change/3371272/story.html) them earlier this summer. The Post article expands it.
If you want to know where a political party’s money came from, look to where our money is going. Here in BC a lot of our tax money is going into green energy subsidies.
It is just more evidence the green movement is not about the environment but wealth redistribution.

The rest of the “57 states” need to expel California or secede as it were.

This could be why governments are focussed on ‘green’ strategies:
Gold is where you find it: CALPERS is focussed on ‘Green’ investing to increase its returns and reduce its underfunding ration
Governments forcing us to pay CO2 taxed could be their sleight-of-hand way of fixing up the imprudent pension promises they made to (unionised) public employees.
Don’t let it happen.

“I hadn’t really been aware (mabye once was but had forgotten) how close it has come in the past especially in recent decades for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment.”
You don’t need a convention to propose an amendment. Congress can do that. The problem (well, one of the problems) is that around the early 1900’s the Senate was changed from being appointed by the state legislatures to being elected at large. That basically transferred the political power in the Senate from the States to whichever political machine controls the largest metro area in the state. The state governments then lost their check on federal power and things have become unbalanced as a result. So Los Angeles controls California’s Senate delegation rather than the state legislature. In the past, the Senate would push back against federal unfunded mandates because the states would “fire” any Senator that voted for it when their term expired. This is no longer the case.
What we really need to do is go back to at least one Senator from each state being appointed by the state legislature, even if the other is elected by the people. The state governments need some input on the federal government.

To paraphrase Anthony, “Kneel before Zod!”
1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I kinda think we are covered against this sort of nonsense.

More strange idea’s about “skeptics”.
Swiss Academy of Science: Skepticsm is scientific unless it comes from climate skeptics.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/21/swiss-academy-of-sciences-swiss-academy-of-sciences-skepticism-is-scientific-unless-it-comes-from-climate-skeptics/

Dave Springer says:
November 21, 2010 at 11:31 am
curly says:
November 21, 2010 at 9:53 am
re; lifetime federal court appointments
At least you can choose to move out of the 9th circuit. There’s no way to escape the supreme court.
You probably know all the below by heart but others might not…..
__________________________________________________________________
David thank you for the information.
I too would love to see Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of the Commerce Clause, reversed. That has to be the worst ruling ever made by the supreme court as far as its effects on the every day life of Americans.
“The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:
[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.
As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?'” ….”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

RichieP
You’re quite right: Bad day !
$8.63 per imperial gallon, is that $10.36 per US gallon ?
Still a bad day, and late now !

Oh, and 75% of that is tax !
With another tax added (VAT) that is calculated on the fuel PRICE, plus the fuel TAX.
So we pay tax on a tax !

The administration positions the issue as “California is too big to fail” and puts together a financial package, coupled to “reforms” in order to make it politically viable to a disapproving Republican House.

I don’t believe that will happen. The card that will be played is “the citizens of the other 49 states are taxed enough without having to be forced to subsidize the California legislature’s inability to live within its means”.
In other words, the citizens of every other state will, in effect, pay California state taxes in addition to their own state and federal tax. It isn’t going to happen. There is no way the taxpayers of Texas or Florida or even New York will agree to bailing out the California legislature.

crosspatch says:
November 21, 2010 at 5:42 pm “I don’t believe that will happen.”
I hope you are right. But a lot of favors are owed to the political class in California, and there is already a backdoor bailout in progress via the Build America Bonds gig; see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575621062239887650.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I don’t weather to laugh or fear.

Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?
Chicken Little?

mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm

What gets me is how crafty the people of California are in their stupidity.
Jerry Brown is an idiot, who will be a prime target for a recall referendum when things inevitably get worse. Knowing that, they had the foresight to elect Gavin Newsom as lieutenant governor.
Now, no matter how bad things get, nobody in their right mind will try to recall Brown because Newsom is so much farther out there in looney tunes land.
This was a stroke of sheer genius!

Hmmm, that does not make sense. In the last recall election, I am sure you remember it, Bustemante did not get to be governor. Arnold did.

@sharpe
Cruz Boostthemoney ran a strong second. I doubt Arnold will participate in the next one.

I have not read this all yet–I assume that burning at the stake (or maybe stoning) is the punishment.
[One must first pass the dunk test: If a skeptic doesn’t drown, she must be a witch and can be burned at the stake. Stoning is for crimes against fidelity, and can only be assigned those who tell the truth. 8<) Robt]

mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm

@sharpe
Cruz Boostthemoney ran a strong second. I doubt Arnold will participate in the next one.

I don’t think Arnold should run either, since he has not actually been very effective at dealing with the excesses of this predecessors and their pandering to public sector unions.
Unfortunately Ronald is dead … and the Republicans seem unable to field a worthy candidate.

As the world turns…
Similar to the federal side and the EPA, TSA, DOE, etc and other out of control bureaucractic agencies
CARB needs to be defunded, along with the CEC, etc.
If the TEA party sticks together… the FEDS will not be able to Bail out Calif again, and the state will have to go bankrupt…
I find it ironic (or is that moronic) that the state supposedly re-elected moonbeam, since he is at the root of the problems.
The state of CA is consistently screwed up.

Dear Rational Debate
Information per your request
Primary System developed:
– Explosive Destruction System see details at http://www.cma.army.mil/nscmp.aspx
Primary mission locations:
– Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 2001-2004 – destroyed over 60 weapons.
(various fills)
– Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, spring and summer 2001 – destroyed ten
recovered 139 bomblets (sarin filled).
– Former camp Sibert, Alabama, late 2002 – destroyed one world-war II 4.2 mortar
(phosgene filled)
– Fort Richardson, Alaska, July 2003 – destroyed various agent identification sets with
rapid response system.
– Spring valley, Washington D.C., summer 2003 – destroyed fifteen world-war I
75-mm projectiles (mustard filled) .
– Most of 2005, involved in the destruction of the Newport chemical weapons facility
in Newport Indiana (VX facility). see here:
http://www.cma.army.mil/newport.aspx
Regards, kforestcat

@Rational Debate:
“My question for you is related to the 1st Amendment – clearly it prohibits Congress from making any laws of this nature – but has that/does that translate down to the state level, e.g., are states similarly prohibited from making such laws? I suppose I’ve always assumed that to be the case either by president or however it has worked legally (and one of your comments implies this is the case), but in thinking about it more directly I wonder if that is actually the case?”
This is a common misconception regarding the First Amendment and Free Speech Clause. The U.S. Congress is allowed to pass certain bills limiting freedom of speech in a number of categories, which are then signed into law by the President. State governments also may pass such laws. The example above, at 18 U.S.C. 1001, is a Federal law of this type. It is a valid restriction on Free Speech. Other valid restrictions include obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, among others.
The speech category involved here is known as Content-specific speech, in which this type of law is included. The controlling case, from the U.S. Supreme Court, is R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) in which the Court held that laws prohibiting speech based on that speech’s content are Constitutional if two conditions are met: 1) the state (i.e. the government) has a compelling interest in regulating that speech content, and 2) the law is narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest.
The case of R.A.V. v City of St. Paul is available on the internet, along with much scholarly commentary due to its high importance in U.S. law. One such link for the case is
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0377_ZO.html
This case is fairly long and full of Supreme Court legalese. Warning: this case may be offensive, as it deals with burning a cross on the lawn of a black family’s home.

David A. Evans says:
November 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm
‘RichieP says:
November 21, 2010 at 10:22 ‘Gasoline is $1.91 per imperial gallon’
Er no, not at all. Don’t you mean per litre? That’s what I’m paying in SE England. Per (uk) gallon that would be $5.08 or so (though, unlike some climate scientists, I’m quite prepared to have my calculations challenged).
I calculate it closer to $8.60 US
DaveE.’
Er thank you for the correction, maths was never my best subject – and anyway, I’ve lost the original data now. 🙂

@ Larry Sheldon, re the First Amendment.
“What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting…” are we not understanding.
Please answer without quoting unauthorized revisions by judges, pundits, and bar-room authorities.”
You raise a very interesting point. The language of the Constitution, and the Amendments, seems to be very clear. However, the Constitution was written, negotiated, revised, and finally approved with the understanding that it was impossible to write into the document all the nuances and situations that would someday require addressing. There is a fascinating history of the Constitution found at several places on-line.
The First Amendment was one of the most complex, yet succinct, portions of the entire Constitution. The Founding Fathers left it to the Congress and the President to write various laws that further define the Constitution , and left it to the Courts to decide if those laws passed muster and were Constitutional. That’s how our system works, in our system of checks and balances. (by the way, the Fourth Amendment also is very short, but has millions of words written on what it means in practice. Same with just about every part of the Constitution.)
As one example, what exactly is “abridging the Freedom of Speech?” The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches together have hammered out over many, many years that certain categories of speech are not “free,” meaning that laws could be passed to restrict such speech, and provide penalties for violating those laws.
I gave a few examples in the earlier comment: obscenity, defamation, and fighting words. There are several others, such as death threats to a President, inciting a riot, inciting the overthrow of the government, hate speech, and a few more.
The underlying theme is a balance between having a society in which citizens are free to express themselves without fear of retaliation from the government, versus having a dis-orderly society with a badly functioning government. Taking the Presidential death threat as an example, one can imagine how society would be if anyone could threaten the President at any time. Government resources would be expended needlessly on excessive security.
For a fairly exhaustive resource on the First Amendment, one could spend a year or more reading and digesting the material at this link:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/index.html
Note that the material at that link is almost entirely from U.S. Supreme Court cases, which illustrates how very, very important it is to wisely elect a President and Senators, because those are the ones who choose Supreme Court Justices. (these are not from pundits, or bar-room sources you mentioned.)
In the USA, we entrust those nine Justices with critically important matters such as Free Speech, even when it concerns something as mundane as climate science.

Well the problem with the US Constitution is that it is written in plain English, instead of the mediaeval Roman gobbledegook that Lawyers talk. Albeit, in English of a different era; but English just the same.
So we the people can read it and know exactly what it means; because it is written so we can do that.
Lawyers like to talk about “interpreting” the Constitution. Interpreting, means, replacing words with other words; and when you replace words with other words; you get other meaning.
So I prefer to stay with the words that the framers wrote.
“”””” The Founding Fathers left it to the Congress and the President to write various laws that further define the Constitution “””””
Well not exactly. The last clause in Article I Section 8 says that (The Congress shall have the Power) to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY AND PROPER…..
And we all know exactly what “NECESSARY” means:
A is NECESSARY for B if, and ONLY if, Absent A, B is impossible, no matter what.
So Congress is authotized to make only NECESSARY LAWS; not any law that comes to their little pea brain heads.
And a law is NECESSARY only if there is only one way to do something. If a certain problem can be addressed in five different ways; each the result of a differett law; then NONE OF THOSE LAWS IS NECESSARY, because there are four other ways to do the same thing (at least). In which case the States are more than capable (or the people) of choosing which way they want to address the issue, and The Congress has no business getting involved.
The Congress has even been known to pass laws that absolutely nobody out of the whole 535 of them in the Congress has ever read or written a word of. Such a law is hardly necessary if they pass it without reading it.
And when it comes to the first amendment, it seems to me that no law really means NO LAW. The problem is that they pay attention to the “respecting an establishment of religion,” but they completely forget about that “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” part.
And how come when it says : “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” the words “The people” mean “The poeple” but somehow magically you go another 30 words into the Bill of Rights; and somehow now the words “The people” mean the National Guard (which is an arm of the US military) or some other militia. Total BS.
Howcome NOBODY ever mentions article nine of the Bill of Rights; which in essence says that “the people”; that’s US, not the national guard, retain ALL of our rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (well the Bill of Rights); and that does include THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
Even staunch conservatives claim there is NO Constitutional Right to Privacy; like Judge Robert Bork for example. Well he’s right in a sense; in that the Constitution grants us NO rights at all. We all ready declared in the Declaration of Independence that we were born with all our rights; well we said god gave them to us.
The Constitution literally takes rights away from US, and gives them to the Government “in Order to form a more perfect Union” ALL of the ones that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution; like the right to privacy; we the people retain under Article nine.
Well but y’alls already knew that; right ?
Well IANAL; but I can read ENGLISH.
And I don’t seem to remember that part of the Constitution that tells the President that he can write laws; seems like that is for the legislative branch to do. My memory must be slipping; perhaps I should look up the Constitution on wiki or google and see what it really says. But that article IX, I do remember what that says.

George,
Thanks for the comments on the Constitution. It certainly makes it clear that the US Congress has wandered very very far from the directive of making ONLY NECESSARY LAWS.
I wonder what the founding fathers would think of bill S210 regulating farms?
From the text of the bill:
(2) Registration
An entity (referred to in this section as the “registrant”) shall submit a registration under paragraph (1) to the Secretary containing information necessary to notify the Secretary of the name and address of each facility at which, and all trade names under which, the registrant conducts business and, the e-mail address for the contact person of the facility or, in the case of a foreign facility, the United States agent for the facility, and when determined necessary by the Secretary through guidance, the general food category (as identified under section 170.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other food categories as determined appropriate by the Secretary, including by guidance) of any food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at such facility. The registration shall contain an assurance that the Secretary will be permitted to inspect such facility at the times and in the manner permitted by this Act. The registrant shall notify the Secretary in a timely manner of changes to such information. ”
From the experiences of petting farm operators I have talked to this mean you MUST inform the FDA every time you leave the farm or face a possible fine. – House arrest anyone? The agent WILL inspect your kitchen cupboards, frig, bathroom medicine cabinets. Again from the actual experiences of petting farm operators I know.
“…In S 510, the FDA is instructed to follow all international agreements. One of the issues with international ‘guidelines and standards’ is “good agricultural practices”. Well those are not necessarily good. Most GAP certifying bodies have checklists about 25 pages long for growers to follow. They all require traceability (ie. NAIS) they also require auditing, verifying and certifying the processes used to produce a consumable product for human or animal feed. Every step in GAP costs the grower of food money and a good deal of paperwork. ….” http://nonais.org/2010/11/12/s510-cloture-vote/
“…The take-away message is clear: the US can’t require foreign producers in less developed nations to have a system that is equal to ours; we have to accept their different or lower standards as equivalent to domestic standards. Nevertheless, the legislation will hold domestic producers to higher standards than foreign producers. Once you understand this reality, the argument that the legislation is needed to improve the safety of imported food reveals itself to be a fraud.
Despite the fact that the World Health Organization identifies globalization of the food supply as a key cause of foodborne illness worldwide, such trade will increase, even displacing US production. We are legally prohibited from doing anything meaningful about it, unless we’re willing to sustain vast fines or withdraw from the WTO….” http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Food-Safety-Reform-and-t-by-Nicole-Johnson-100426-437.html
Sec. 105 Standards for Produce Safety also creates a similarly named new section in the FFDCA that contains sub-paragraph 419(a)(1)(A) which begins, “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary,…, shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of…fruits and vegetables…”
one doesn’t have to have a crystal ball to know what type of rule the FDA will almost certainly write. One need only look at similar documents the FDA has already published. Take for example the 3 guides to minimize microbial food safety hazards (tomatoes, melons and leafy greens) published in July 2009. Links to each are at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/default.htm.
The one for leafy greens is 15,294 words and takes 35 pages as a Word document. The others are similarly long and the FDA has already stated its inclination is use that technique. How does a small farming growing 40 different crops keep up with that?
As for the rules for the HARPC plans, Silliker (one of the top consultants in food safety) did a full feasibility study in late 2009 for Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) in western MA entitled “HACCP for Salad Greens.” Except for 2 proprietary parts of the study, everything else is at http://buylocalfood.org/page.php?id=285. The requirements and cost estimates are well beyond EVERY grower I know.
Comment by Harry Hamil at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/11/senate-to-take-key-vote-on-food-safety-bill-today/
Forget locally grown food once this is passed.

The wheat farmer case, Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) did involve a small dairy farmer, who grew wheat on 23 acres for his own farm’s and family’s consumption; although he did sell a small surplus from time to time. The amount of wheat he sold into the market was 239 bushels – not a great amount of wheat by any measure.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html
The decision was justified on the grounds that even individually small market entries could disrupt interstate commerce, if this was practiced by millions of small entities.