The EPA is challenged in the Supreme Court over greenhouse gas regulations

It has not been a good week for the EPA. After wide media coverage yesterday put sunlight on the massive fraud of one of their top climate officials, now today, there is a challenge filed in SCOTUS.

I have been given the amici curiae brief. The cover reads:

amicus_epa

And the question posed is:

amicus_epa2

Since the document is password protected, I’m unable to do anything beyond post screencaps and the document itself. The brief was created by several well known climate sceptics, plus a former chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory board.

The arguments are:

amicus_epa4 amicus_epa3

 

Read the entire submission (PDF) here: Amicus_curiae-EF_SC_Merit_12-1146etseq.tsacScientistsFinal_Final

 

About these ads

87 thoughts on “The EPA is challenged in the Supreme Court over greenhouse gas regulations

  1. The Affordable Health Care Act decision has already shown that the SCOTUS can be:
    a) bullied
    b) bribed
    c) threatened
    d) blackmailed
    e) all of the above

  2. That is good news, the EPA is a burden to society they need tighter regulations placed on them than even a BP refinery.

  3. pi**ing in the wind, snowball in Hell’s, US winning the World Cup, not a prayer, the Arctic will be ice free in our lifetime. You get the message about how much chance this has of succeeding.

  4. SCOTUS accepts for hearing only about 5% of the requests for Writ of Certiorari.
    Don’t get your hopes up.

  5. “I’m unable to do anything beyond post screencaps and the document itself.”
    That depends on your PDF viewer. I’m able to copy text from it when using a different PDF viewer.

    But the problem is far broader: the entirety of the regulatory regime for stationary source prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits is literally nonsensical as applied to these gases, and CO2 in particular.

  6. We need to show how massive the intellectual fraud that teh EPA has committed.

    The real trial of Al Gores’s crimes against humannity is the one trial that will never happen though.

  7. Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule back in 2007 that Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated by the EPA?

  8. wow, what a horribly written document.

    clue never say your opponents argument makes no sense. Chances are you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting and failing to take your opponents argument seriously is a tactic that fails more often than it succeeds.

  9. The SCOTUS will decide this on LEGAL grounds, not on its scientific grounds. Congress, in its stupidity and negligence, gave the EPA the legal authority to determine what is environmentally sound or not , and what is considered “scientific” proof.
    If the EPA determines for political or ideological reasons that certain regulations must be enacted, even if based on FRAUDALENT “science,” the EPA can always present a scientific rationale to prove their point. In this case, the criminal fraud of AGW will be trotted out as justification.
    After all, climate science is much like economic “science;” controlled experiments are impossible and the data can be explained to conform to your political ideology and an explanation after-the-facts is ALWAYS found.
    The SCOTUS must answer the central question, ” does the EPA have the LEGAL authority to impose their decision?” The science is really not going to be central to the decision.

  10. See ScotusBlog.com for further documents on the Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency
    SC Docket No. 12-1146, Op Below: D. C. Cir.; Argument: Feb 24, 2014, Questions Presented

    LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether EPA permissibly determined
    that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered
    permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit
    greenhouse gases.

  11. Steven Mosher said:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:19 am
    clue never say your opponents argument makes no sense. Chances are you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting and failing to take your opponents argument seriously is a tactic that fails more often than it succeeds.
    ——————–
    And he should know ;)

  12. “snowballs chance etc.”

    Negative defeatists many of you. There are people out there fighting your battles. What are you guys doing, except whining?

  13. “wow, what a horribly written document.

    The fake scientist offers a post of his own to use as an example.

  14. Negative defeatists many of you. There are people out there fighting your battles. What are you guys doing, except whining?
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Well said.

  15. John S. at 10:15 am
    Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule back in 2007 that Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated by the EPA?

    Not exactly. SCOTUS ruled that the EPA could use the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate CO2 if the EPA Administrator found that CO2 could be classified as a pollutant under the CAA. That is one reason for Obama’s “Carbon Pollution” terminology invention this year. CO2 must be a “pollutant” for the CAA to apply.

    On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

    •Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
    •Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
    These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EPA finalized emission standards for light-duty vehicles (2012-2016 model years) in May of 2010 and heavy-duty vehicles (2014-2018 model years) in August of 2011.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

    Signed by the Administrator Dec. 7, 2009 ( a date that will live in Infamy)
    Final rule published in the Federal Register, Dec. 15, 2009
    Rule Effective Jan. 14, 2010.

    I think the one of the most vulnerable aspects of the EPA rule is that the Clean Air Act specifies that emissions above 100 and 250 Tons per year for pollutants be regulated. This level, specified by Congress in the law, is an absurdly low figure in regards to CO2. So the EPA is “tailoring” the rule, i.e. rewriting the CAA requirements, to allow them to regulate the big stuff, and gradually tighten the noose.

    Thanks to Justice Roberts, what words are used and not used in laws, is increasingly becoming irrelevant these days.

    Existing Clean Air Act statutory thresholds for criteria pollutants are 100 and 250 tons per year (TPY). If GHG emissions were subject to those thresholds, then, according to EPA estimates, 82,000 PSD permits would be required each year and 6 million facilities would require Title V operating permits. Many commercial establishments, apartment buildings, hospitals and schools could find themselves subject to EPA regulation under current thresholds. Thus, on the basis of administrative necessity, EPA is “tailoring” its requirements to reach the largest GHG emitters first.

    Under Step 1 of the “tailoring” rule (January 2-June 30, 2011), sources already subject to PSD requirements would be required to implement GHG BACT requirements if a modification results in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy or more of GHGs. Under Step 2 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013), PSD permitting requirements will cover new construction projects that emit GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant. Modifications of existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy will be subject to permitting requirements even if they do not significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant…….
    …..
    The tailoring rule also commits EPA to conduct another rulemaking that will determine whether certain smaller sources can be permanently excluded from permitting. EPA will not require permits for smaller sources until at least April 30, 2016.

    Current Status

    On June 26th, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld EPA’s authority to set emissions limits for GHGs. The Court affirmed EPA’s Endangerment Finding, Mobile Source rules and upheld the Tailoring Rule on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing. While this litigation was pending, EPA initiated a number of steps necessary to regulate GHGs.
    (Source: http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/regulation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-under-the-clean-air-act/)

  16. Steven Mosher is clearly not familiar with the “absurd results” justification that the EPA used to “tailor” the CAA to GHG.

  17. Given the Obamacare decision by this court, I could see them rule that Congress has given the EPA the right to make regulations regardless of any science involved.

  18. @JA at 10:21 am
    Congress, in its stupidity and negligence, gave the EPA the legal authority to determine what is environmentally sound or not , and what is considered “scientific” proof.

    Right you are. Correcting that mistake is worth a government shutdown at the next debt limit. Part of the Dept Limit extension should have a law requiring all EPA rules to be passed by both houses of Congress. The EPA can write all the rules they want, but none should any effect of law until the People’s elected representatives, their lawmakers, approve. Without this rebalance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches, we no longer have a Republic in the USA.

  19. Stephen Rasey says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I think Stephen got everything right. In brief, the question is whether the EPA has the authority to do all this “tailoring” and “fixing” to their rules. In my fallible judgement, the EPA’s tailoring and fixing amount to rewriting existing rules that are specified in statutes. In other words, the EPA is legislating. The long term solution is to pass legislation that restricts the EPA’s power. In the short run, maybe SCOTUS will hear this case. Given the administration’s recent rewriting of much of the healthcare act, maybe five justices will decide that it is time to send a message about the integrity of statutes and separation of powers.

  20. The GCM/observation comparison graph is pretty creative, I’ll give them that.

    I’m not entirely sure how the discussion of the tropical hotspot is supposed to counter the EPA’s argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing concentrations warm the earth The tropical hot spot is not a signature of anthropogenic forcing per se; any external forcing should result in similar patterns. The fact that they are not observed (provided observations are correct) is in indictment of the models more than the basic physics.

  21. Box of Rocks says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:06 am

    We need to show how massive the intellectual fraud that teh EPA has committed.

    The real trial of Al Gores’s crimes against humannity is the one trial that will never happen though.
    _____________________
    Yes, but win tonight’s drawing for the immense MegaMillions lottery jackpot and you too can be as rich as All Gore, (but not as rich as the corporate donor to POTUS which earns billions and billions tax free from sales of its wind generators or the rich Obama donor who makes billions from the transport of Canadian tar- sands crude instead of safe, logical pipeline transport, or …)

  22. It sounds as if the EPA is not interested scientific arguments that get in the way of their agenda. The following is a link to a review paper by EPA own scientist concerning what portion of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2 vs natural causes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
    I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable. The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
    1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
    2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
    3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
    4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
    5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
    6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
    7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.

    I might add the warming in the last 70 years does not match the signature of AGW warming. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere and the amount of warming is directly proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2 the most amount of warming should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed.
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”… ….“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

  23. Heh, Zeke, it seems the question is not to the basic physics, but to the EPA’s faith in the models.
    =============

  24. http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

    “Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.”

  25. Here’s a simple summary that even lawyers should be able to understand. Hopefully SCOTUS is reading something similar:

    The physicist Richard Feynman said that it doesn’t matter how smart or powerful you are, if your hypothesis is contradicted by the empirical data, you need a new hypothesis. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis claims that the increasing level of carbon dioxide (co2) due to human activities (largely related to burning fossil fuels) causes global warming. The “evidence” backing that claim is dubious, at best.

    “The seas are rising!”. The seas have been rising (except for a possible few hundred years of reversal during the Little Ice Age) for the past 18,000 years, ever since the last (real) ice age began melting. Sea level is now up 400+ feet. The current ANNUAL sea level rise is 1 to 2 mm per YEAR! ( 1 mm = .0393701 inches.) This is miniscule and likely overwhelmed by measurement error. Some perspective may help. There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years. The average duration of each ice age during that period was 90,000 years. Each ice age has been followed by a warming (interglacial) period, (such as the one we now enjoy) average duration 10,000 years. When there is no further increase in sea level you can bet that the next ice age (or at least a Little Ice Age) is beginning.

    The statistics clearly show that extreme weather events (typhoons, hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts) have been even less frequent and less severe than usual over the past couple of decades. Even many scientists who back the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are embarrassed by uninformed folks blaming such events on global warming.

    The latest UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits (at least in one version of its report) that current temperatures are the highest in the past 800 years. This is, finally, a reversal by the UN, now admitting that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was a global event and experienced higher temperatures than now. Human activity was not responsible for that warming period (and co2 level was apparently not rising.) Earlier warming periods during this interglacial had even higher temperatures. Many “scientists” originally claimed that our current warming could not be explained, so must have been caused by human activity. (That is pure speculation, not evidence, certainly no different than what a cave-man might have concluded. Before casting aside the default assumption, which is natural climate variation, there must be evidence.) Finally, there has been no additional increase in temperature over the past 17 years, even as the co2 level has continued to increase. In fact, of the five global temperature datasets, (3 terrestrial, 2 satellite), all show a current 5 year cooling trend , and 4 of the 5 show a current 10 year cooling trend!

    The beginning of our current warming (such as it is) is generally associated with the beginning of our industrial revolution. But there is no justification for that cherry-picked start-date. Our current warming actually began, by definition, at the bottom (the low temperature) of the Little Ice Age, which happened in the mid 1600s. That’s two centuries of warming BEFORE both the industrial revolution and co2 began increasing.

    The only known correlation between global temperature variation and co2 variation is over geologic periods and is clear. It shows temperature variation being mimicked, hundreds of years later, by co2 changes. (That’s just the carbon cycle at work. Oceans outgas when warmer, and absorb gas during cooling periods.) During the most recent cooling period (1940s to 1970s) co2 continued to rise. More recently, as temperature remained flat, and now has begun dropping, co2 continues to rise. Moreover, co2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now in the more distant past, been much higher during two ice ages and going into once ice age. There does not appear to be any nearby “trigger”. Also, the physics is clear: co2 at 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) will have already consumed 50% of the relatively narrow sun energy bandwidths available to it for absorption. Co2 is now at 400ppmv, so its absorption capability is severely diminished (basically gone.)

    All the computer models which project global warming assume that the real greenhouse gas culprit is water vapor, which supposedly provides a positive feedback, bringing on a temperature increase 2 to 3 times greater than that brought on by increasing co2. This feedback assumption is speculative at best. NOBODY yet understands climate feedbacks. In fact, cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, likely provides a negative (offsetting) feedback. This unjustifiable assumption in the models appears to be consistent with their output, since all have grossly overestimated the actual temperature increase. (In any case, computer model output is NOT evidence of anything apart from the understanding and possible biases of the authors!)

    Co2 volume in the atmosphere is 4/100 of one percent. This is also referred to as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), or .0004. The total contribution, so far, of co2 increase brought on by human activity now represents less than 5% of the co2 in the atmosphere. Thus human activity is, so far, responsible for at most 5% of the 4/100 of one percent. (.05 X .0004 = .00002, a very small proportion.) The US is responsible for perhaps 30 percent of that, and our contribution has been dropping recently due to economic conditions and our recent move from coal to natural gas. Obama is promising to reduce that 30% by 17% over the next several years. But the cost to our economy (which also affects other countries) is clearly gigantic, and, even if successful, would have an impact on temperature so miniscule that the theoretical improvement would not be discernable. Hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in cost and NO IMPROVEMENT !

    I have yet to hear even one coherent attempt at rebuttal. So far the only “rebuttals” rely on “appeals to authority” (hardly relevant when it is “authority” which is in question). Another response depends on “consensus” (scientific conclusions are not decided by votes, but this claim is ridiculous because it’s based on, at most, two completely bogus surveys). Then there is the inane effort by some, to completely ignore the science and instead attempt to psychoanalyze skeptics. Michael Mann (infamous “hockey stick graph” author) responds to scientific criticisms, by ignoring the facts presented and instead asking whether the reader prefers to have their gall bladder taken out by a dentist.

    It does seem clear that human activity is contributing to the increase in carbon dioxide. However, some perspective, again, is needed. By 2099 the co2 level is projected to reach 600 ppmv (this assumes a continuation of the annual increase of 2ppmv per year). A crowded gym with poor venting would likely be at 1000 ppmv. Submarine crews work, for months, in atmospheres of 3000 to 5000+ ppmv. Plants LOVE the increased co2 level and, in that environment, require less water. Scientists have acknowledged that earlier lifeforms not unlike our own survived in co2 levels which were many times higher than now.

    We have time, and technology may come up with sensible solutions long before the co2 level is a problem. In this case invoking the “precautionary principle” will likely solve nothing and bring on much larger problems. Don’t let the politicians introduce this hobgoblin!

  26. cave horse:

    May I translate? Thank you:

    “We CENSOR comments that do not follow the alarmist narrative.”

    That’s about it, isn’t it? And in fewer words.

  27. @Zeke Hausfather at 11:20 am
    With difference to Justice Roberts, words mean things.

    to counter the EPA’s argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas>;
    No, EPA’s argument is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas pollutant.

    and increasing concentrations warm the earth.
    It is an endangerment finding, so they must show not only that warming the earth causes more [harm] than good, but that the net harm raises to the level of endangerment to the overall [environment]. Geologic history is a pretty fair counter argument.

    The fact that they are not observed (provided observations are correct) is in indictment of the models more than the basic physics.
    According to the “basic physics” the long term climate sensitivity has what natural value?
    What part of the “basic physics” classifies CO2 as a pollutant?
    What part of the “basic physics” classifies CO2 as a danger to the environment?
    The EPA cannot make the finding on the basic physics. They must make use of the models. If you think the models are under indictment, then so is the finding.

  28. Steven Mosher says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:19 am

    wow, what a horribly written document.

    clue never say your opponents argument makes no sense. Chances are you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting and failing to take your opponents argument seriously is a tactic that fails more often than it succeeds.
    I’m not a lawyer, but it perhaps it makes more sense if one keeps in mind that it’s a legal brief rather than a scientific document.

  29. This amicus is support of a previous writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS that was previously submitted. The case is known as: Chamber of Commerce v. EPA. The writ itself is based on the expansion of the regulation of CO2 emissions from vehicles to stationary sources. I do not expect the SCOTUS to rule on AGW or the lack thereof. The point of law behind this is simple. If the plain language of the enabling legislation states that the EPA can regulate horses, can they then regulate frogs? On its face, the answer should be no, but there have been many strange decisions over time.

    I regard this amicus as less than fundamental to the case. Nice to have perhaps, but not central.

  30. Stephen Rasey says:
    December 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
    “The EPA cannot make the finding on the basic physics. They must make use of the models. If you think the models are under indictment, then so is the finding.”

    Well said. I’m so sick and tired of the “basic physics” argument by Mosher, Hausfather, Gavin Schmidt and David Appell. They all gloss over the obvious failure of the all the kings best men to put a basic model of the basic physics to work that predicts the basic climate of the basic planet.

  31. The brief reads as a brief on the merits. Has SCOTUS already accepted the case for review or is the amicus supporting the request for certiorari?

    If the case has already been accepted for review, the petitioner’s odds of winning go up significantly.

  32. Any person, group or organization, left to its own will do what is necessary to survive and increase its power and influence. Having three branches of government to put checks and balances on each other was an amazing experiment.
    Oversight authority has been granted but often falls short if there is not adequate balance.
    Consider the IPCC:
    If the question set before the IPCC was to determine all factors which may influence any changes in climate instead of ‘Do certain human activities, in particular the emission of so call greenhouse gases show an effect on climate’ the obvious bias it has taken simply to exist would not have been so pronounced.
    Currently, the executive branch of the US has greatly exceeded its Constitutional powers.
    It is attempting to bypass congress in several ways; one being with its collusion with the EPA.
    I am sure that anyone reading this is aware of several US governmental agencies trying illegally to extend the agencies powers.
    At any rate, I am very glad to see this action regardless of the magnitude of the outcome. – and I expect it may not be too much. But everything is something.
    I expect many of us here do whatever is necessary to make local media of aware of what is happening (even if they do not appreciate it)

  33. In reply to:

    Zeke Hausfather says:
    December 17, 2013 at 11:20 am
    The GCM/observation comparison graph is pretty creative, I’ll give them that.
    I’m not entirely sure how the discussion of the tropical hotspot is supposed to counter the EPA’s argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing concentrations warm the earth The tropical hot spot is not a signature of anthropogenic forcing per se; any external forcing should result in similar patterns. The fact that they are not observed (provided observations are correct) is in indictment of the models more than the basic physics.
    William:
    Due to the overlap of the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 most of the predicted warming due to the increase in CO2 is a high altitudes (two or three times surface warming) in the atmosphere where there is less and less water (20 to 40 times less water depending on altitude). As there is no tropical tropospheric warming at high altitudes in the troposphere that indicates there are one or more fundamental errors in the general circulation models. The GCMs surprise, surprise, surprise predict two to three times too much warming.
    Any warming due to CO2 is not dangerous warming due to CO2. The IPCC’s own analysis indicates the warming less than 2C is most beneficial. Now as the actual warming is restricted to high latitude regions the warming is unequivocally beneficial as the growing season in high latitude regions is limited by minimum summer temperature and number of frost free days.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

    Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere by Jack Barrett
    The absorption values for the pre-industrial atmosphere add up to 86.9%, significantly lower than the combined value of 72.9%. This occurs because there is considerable overlap between the spectral bands of water vapour and those of the other GHGs. If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present. Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the atmosphere gives rise to some scepticism…. …..On a radiative-alone basis, the 47.7 K of warming may be divided up into contributions from water and carbon dioxide from the figures given in Table 2 and amount to 37.4 K from water and 9.3 K from carbon dioxide. The water contribution should then be reduced by the cooling effect from evaporation to 24.0 K. The above calculations apply only to the first 100 m of the atmosphere and water is less and less effective in comparison to carbon dioxide as altitude increases. This is because the contribution to the atmospheric content of water reduces very rapidly with altitude, the ever-lower temperatures determining that the water vapour content decreases, that of carbon dioxide only decreasing with the decreasing pressure. At sea level the mean molecular ratio of water vapour to CO2 is around 23, but at an altitude of 10 km the value is as low as 0.2. It would be expected that more CO2 would have a greater effect on atmospheric warming at higher altitudes, but this seems not to be occurring in spite of the predictions of most GCMs.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

  34. This is one of at least eight briefs filed in this case. This amicus brief is only advisory to the Court. The Court will consider the question or questions raised in the petitioners’ briefs.

    More later, hopefully tonight 12-17-13.

  35. Surely there must have been a few other instances in history in which practical evidence ran counter to jurists leanings to such an extent as to relent to the truth eventually—such as failed global warming science by decree. What was the lag time on slavery for example?

  36. “The tropical hot spot is not a signature of anthropogenic forcing per se; any external forcing should result in similar patterns.”

    The tropical hotspot is a signature of water vapour feedback causing a change in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. A moister atmosphere has a shallower lapse rate (lower gradient wrt altitude) as well as being shifted higher. The lapse rate and AGW partially cancel near the surface, but reinforce one another above the average altitude of emission to space.

    Its absence suggest that the water vapour level is not increasing as expected, reducing the magnification of the basic 1 C/2xCO2 sensitivity from CO2 alone. It’s quite true that it poses no problem for the basic AGW mechanism, but it is potentially highly significant for the issue of the feedbacks, which turn it into a scare.

    But since we already have other indications that sensitivity is lower than the models project, this is perhaps not such a surprise.

  37. Some of you have gotten pretty clever trying to inject real science in the discussion of greenhouse gases. As a former Secretary of state said “What difference does it make?

  38. Worth a try but I don’t expect much from the guys who who gave us the pseudo-scientific Endangerment decision..

  39. Zeke-I have not yet taken the time to read this particular brief, however, you misrepresent the EPA’s argument. It appears you are attempting to set up a sort of reverse strawman:
    Where an ordinary strawman misrepresents an opponent’s argument in an effort to make any easier target for undermining, you have attempted to take the argument on your own side and misrepresent in as a more *defensible* argument, but one which is *not sufficient* for the EPA’s action.You represent the EPA’s argument as “that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing concentrations warm the earth.” But this is not the EPA’s argument, or rather, it is not the whole of it. Because, by itself, this argument is *insufficient* to justify regulation. To justify regulation it is necessary to show *endangerment to health and welfare of the people of the United States.* The EPA made a number of completely erroneous arguments that there was endangerment to the health and welfare of the people of the United States, both *presently* and in the *future*. The *future* endangerment is contingent in significant part on the magnitude of future warming and therefore requires accurate modeling to assess. The *current* endangerment, does not actually exist, and required the EPA to either misrepresent known science, or rely on government reports *that misrepresent known science.*

    Resourceguy: Dred Scot v. Sanford was in 1857, if that is the court case you are thinking of. The court never overturned that decision, but in 1865, Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.
    The dates for Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were 1896 and 1954, respectively, which gives a good sense for how long it can take the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling.

  40. What is missing in their lawsuit is the fact that there is no greenhouse warming now despite the highest ever atmospheric CO2 amount. There has been no warming for 15 years which I as a scientist consider sufficient proof that greenhouse warming does not exist. EPA science is based on Svante Arrhenius and is proven wrong by the work of Ferenc Miskolci. But the fifteen years no-warming is just the tip of the iceberg. There was also an eighteen year no-warming period in the eighties and nineties.that was fraudulently covered up by a non-existent “late twentieth century warming.” I proved it did not exist and even warned against it in the preface to my book “What Warming?” After two years, the big three of temperature – GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC – stopped showing it. They changed their data for this period to correspond to satellites that do not show the warming. It was done secretly and no explanation was given. The explanation is that my book exposed their scam. What these guys going to court should do is to use this fact directly to strike down EPA instead of confining their objections to subsidiary technical arguments.

  41. The EPA has zero chance of losing the case for the following two reasons
    1) The sole method of stopping the endangerment finding is whether the EPA followed correct administrative procedures in determining whether co2 was a pollutant. They do not have to show that co2 is an actual pollutant, Scientifically, there is enough “scientific belief” in the “scientific world” that supports the argument that co2 is a pollutant.
    2) secondly, as demonstrated by ginsburg in her ACA concurring opinion (effectively a dissent on the commerce clause denial of the mandate), as long as the policy is considered sound, then the 4 leftist will find that the endangerment finding is constitutional. (her concurring opinion in the ACA case on the commerce clause was 17-18 pages of which 14 where policy arguments in favor of the mandate and 2 pages of legal analysis on the commerce clause have zero limitations and 2 more pages of policy arguments.

  42. The EPA funded Wigley’s MAGICC model,

    The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company.

    Endangerment Findings Technical Support document says: “This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act. The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.”

    “This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as THIS DECISION IS ULTIMATELY LEFT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.”

    “The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations…”

    Reviewers included Gavin Schmidt, Tom Karl and Susan Solomon.

    Read the rest here: “The United Nations States Environmental Protection Agency”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html

    You might also have a look here for more background on the EPA and the UN

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html

  43. AleaJactaEst says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:02 am

    pi**ing in the wind, snowball in Hell’s, US winning the World Cup, not a prayer, the Arctic will be ice free in our lifetime. You get the message about how much chance this has of succeeding

    Given the odds, my money is on the USA winning the FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

    It’s only a matter of time.

  44. Why do I get the feeling that the Dread Justice Roberts will rule that the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from moving vehicles applies to stationary sources too? I can see him arguing that nothing is really stationary since the Earth rotates and is also revolving around the Sun. That’s a whole lot easier to argue than that the Obamacare mandate is a tax when the very legislators who passed it are on record saying it was not a tax. If the court can completely ignore legislative intent, it can do anything it wants.

  45. No hope for the human race: we argue endlessly abou a harmless gas that POTUS has vowed to fight….. While thousands die in Syria, Africa, Korea, South East Asia, and on and on… And we sit on our hands and argue semantics.

    Must be the Christmas Grinch in me but I feel a bit sad for the world.

    Whatever happened to people with brains AND the ability to make the world a better place.

    However, it IS a better place for millions (billions) so what the heck. Merry Christmas season to all (or whatever happy season you use)

    There. Feeling much better!

    “Good day, eh?”

  46. Bureaucrats like the EPA are only interested in protecting their butts. The IPCC is the perfect foil. Who gives a damn about the truth.

  47. @MattS, The petition for was granted on 10/15/13 subject to: “Oct 15 2013 Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.”

    Full history of all amicus, etc. available here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chamber-of-commerce-of-the-united-states-v-environmental-protection-agency/

  48. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in this case, it has been fully briefed and oral arguments will be heard on Monday, February 24, 2014. Five additional cases have been consolidated with this case.

  49. Mark and two Cats says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:27 am
    Steven Mosher said:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:19 am
    clue never say your opponents argument makes no sense. Chances are you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting and failing to take your opponents argument seriously is a tactic that fails more often than it succeeds.
    ——————–
    And he should know ;)

    ———————————————————
    ..better that anyone !

  50. Monroe @ December 17, 2013 at 10:03 am

    When the SCOTUS is PC we are all in DS.

    PC I understand … DS? Deep .. uhmmm … Seas? :-)

    -17C high today in Ottawa – better than yesterday, but will be worse again this weekend. Waking up to -27C plus 11C wind-chill (it gets worse the lower you go) is challenging.

  51. Robert of Ottawa says:
    December 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    ************************************
    -15 F here this morning, snowing hard at 5 F sunday and tonight. I know the horrors you speak of. friday, saturday, sunday were a high of 13 F or so here but it was brief, spent most of each day around 6 F.
    depending on how storm hits tonight I could get 8-15″, got 13 sunday thats not cleared.
    meh, its maine. not unusual.

  52. Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Leftist / AGW lover
    Sonia Sotomayor – Leftist / AGW lover
    Elena Kagan – Leftist / AGW lover
    Stephen G. Breyer – Liberal / Favors EPA Regs

    Anthony Kennedy – Liberal / Swing / Mixed on Environment & Regs
    Chief Justice John G. Roberts – Conservative / Appears to be Anti-Regulation?

    Samuel A. Alito – Conservative / Anti Regulation
    Antonin Scalia – Conservative / Anti Regulation
    Clarence Thomas – Conservative / Anti EPA

  53. not a citizen of the US, so maybe I should keep my beak out. but my takeaway from this thread is that
    the science is falsified
    the EPA is falsified
    the SCOTUS is falsified

    and there is bugger all we can do about it

  54. Don’t worry guys. Obama has promised that if you like your fossil fuel energy, you can keep your fossil fuel energy. Period.

    Oh…wait….

  55. In the immortal words of the VP of the US “This is a big ****ing Deal!”

    This is bigger than the healthcare decision folks!

    20% of the US economy fell pray to the ACA.

    How much of this economy rides on energy needs? Think about those tenticles >

  56. http://www.law360.com/articles/491448

    “The case will center around the EPA’s expansion of its Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting programs to include greenhouse gases from certain new and modified stationary sources triggered by the release of the tailpipe rule, which the D.C. Circuit upheld last year.

    If the Supreme Court sides with the petitioners — led by the Utility Air Regulatory Group — it could invalidate EPA’s so-called timing and tailoring rules, which require major stationary sources to apply for GHG emissions permits once the motor vehicle standards become effective. The rules also lay out a timeline for sources to apply for permits based on the scale of their GHG emissions.

    In that case, observers say the EPA could be forced to issue an independent endangerment finding for stationary sources, which could delay the agency’s efforts to regulate their GHG emissions.

    But by denying petitions seeking to revisit the Massachusetts decision, observers say the high court has indicated that it’s only willing to address how the EPA regulates greenhouse gas emissions, not whether it can regulate them”

    Even best case scenario means the EPA will still be regulating CO2 emissions, leaving authentic scientists and honorable people frustrated by how the catastrophically corrupted system works………but that doesn’t mean there is no hope.

    Personally, I think that it gets harder and harder to distort, mislead and stall for the alarmists, waiting to be rescued by a resumption of the increasing global temperatures that seemed to support the case back in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

    You might still be able to draw a 100 or 150 year global temperature uptrend line in 2020, using data that starts at those points but even the scientifically impaired, media and others brainwashed by the convincing propoganda will eventually see the fraudulence.

    The truth can’t be suppressed forever and some of us are just earlier than others recognizing it. In this case, the truth has been so effectively disguised and the lies so convincingly told by entities that know how to employ powerful brainwashing techniques on a global scale that it’s taking much longer than any of us prefer.

    Unfortunately, there has already been great harm done. The train has already left the station and it will take a train wreck before many of the passengers realize they were always on a track headed in the wrong direction.

    In a generation, Al Gore will have been stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize but will never have to pay for his horrible crimes, unless you consider something that most of us cherish most…….our reputation.

    In the last 5 years, Al Gore’s reputation has taken a nose dive and is accelerating lower. He still earns top dollar for speaking engagements and appearances with the alarmist crowd but he is quickly becoming the poster child for climate LIE-ence, the butt of jokes and some on his own side are trying to distance themselves from him.

  57. I agree with Steve on both points.

    The documentation has some issues. Content and references are supurb. It is apparent that there were some issues with the translation from scientific speak to legaleezzee involved from my shoes.

    2nd,,,,,The timing of evidence can play a significant roll in any courtroom. Just like an “Ace” in the hole, if you will.

  58. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:47 am
    How is it that oxygen has not been ruled to be a pollutant?
    Look at what damage it can do.
    ==========
    following a heart attack, it is oxygen that does the damage.

  59. Can the plaintiffs call Mr Beal as a witness?
    Was he not the EPA climate change expert at the time of the endangerment decision?

  60. I have not seen the following objection to the Endangerment Finding:

    •Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

    Six key well-mixed greenhouse gases.

    CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 are not interchangable GHGs. Their power and concentrations are different.
    They are well-mixed only in the atmosphere far away from their sources.

    But these GHGs are NOT well-mixed at their sources!
    It is the sources that need to be regulated. So the mix of gases need to regulated separately. Yet the Endangerment Finding lumps them together because they are “well-mixed.”

    Watch the pea under the thimble
    It is like: “PFCs are strong greenhousegases. PFCs fit within the definition of the CAA. PFCs need to be regulated from their few significant sources.
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, too. Therefore, we need to regulate CO2 regardless of the strength and amount of CO2 and the number of sources emitting CO2.”

    Waiting in the wings….
    H2O is a greenhouse gas. It is a stronger GHG than CO2. Anything emitting H2O needs to be regulated.

  61. The EPA in the USA is clearly out of control but I’d like to see the following addressed,.

    The endangerment finding itself is clearly flawed, one must consider the effect of elliminating CO2 to zero in finding it a pollutant. It is either a pollutant at all concentrations or its not a pollutant at all. The EPA can’t have half measures, theoretically should the EPA reduce CO2 to below 170 PPM with its ruling can it now say it is no longer a pollutant or must it continue to regulate emission to the point of destroying all life on earth. This is a constitutional and human rights violation of the highest order. Reducing CO2 causes crop yields to fall and denies the worlds population of their right to life. Reducing CO2 therefore is a crime against humanity.

    In the models it is not CO2 that causes dangerous warming but the feedback effect of water, which has twice the effect of the C02 alone. It strikes me that the EPA can’t exclude water from the list of GHGs it has identified. A legal argument could be mounted that the EPA has regulated the wrong gas.

    Congress should act, and it should act by declaring that CO2, water, nitrogen, oxygen are not pollutants, and are constitutionally protected under the right to life.

  62. The EPA needs to be shut down bwfore it does more damage to the US.
    bobl,
    Water vapour does not cause any warming it cools due to the need for latent heat used in its formation. This heat is subtracted from the surroundings. It takes 7.6 times as much heat to convert 1 gallon of water at 100C to vapour at 100C as it takes to heat that same gallon from 0C to 100C. That is a lot of heat.

  63. Steven Mosher says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:19 am

    Wow, Mosh. Your comment simply underlines your ignorance of the Clean Air Act and the criteria that is required to make a finding of “endangerment” under the Act. But in the face of what has been happening at the EPA, it is unbecoming of you to make such criminally negligent statements.

  64. Actually, it is called the “substantial evidence” rule in administrative law parlance. You are correct that it is a very deferential standard of review, on the theory that courts are not the experts in scientific questions. That does make it problematic whether EPA’s rules will be overturned. But I have found little in what EPA has ever written on this subject that comprises anything more than surmise or solid evidence of any kind.

    Regardless of the result, it is time for Congress to reconsider the review criteria it has established under the Administrative Procedure Act. The substantial evidence rule as a standard of review no longer has much tenability. With regulation increasingly invading larger realms with less and less reliance upon statutory guidance (often such guidance is missing altogether, because Congress has not wanted to take political responsibility for the consequences of its legislation), it has become apparent that regulations such as these are increasingly made on the basis of political judgments instead of sound science. If we want it to be an “endangerment,” we will make it so, come what may.

  65. OK Do all the bottling companies have to stop adding CO2 to their products??
    CO2 is a pollutant after all, Short sell CocaCola…….??
    No more pop; no more beer; no more dry ice….. sheeesh, how stupid can these people get?
    As someone said earlier, if CO2 is a pollutant, then it must be cut down to 1 or 2 ppm,
    Then we all die. The Club of Rome will be happy with the decrease if world population.

  66. ferdberple says:
    December 17, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:47 am
    How is it that oxygen has not been ruled to be a pollutant?
    Look at what damage it can do.
    ==========
    following a heart attack, it is oxygen that does the damage.

    I didn’t know that! And I suspect it may not actually be the oxygen itself, but the lack of carbon dioxide in the oxygen tanks used for heart attacks (and other purposes). Animals REQUIRE adequate CO2 in the air for health. Because it is such a trace gas, it tends to be ignored in chemistry equations such as the studies done by medical doctors. But it is central to life and should not be ignored.

    Tolerating the political correctness of “global warming” encourages continuing to ignore the effects of carbon dioxide at relevant levels on animal life. Indeed, studies of the medical effects of CO2-free oxygen and other studies of near-atmosphere levels are actively discouraged by today’s national science foundations. Some day, that just might kill you.

  67. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    I don’t know if this can do any good, but I know what can. Our Congress must eliminate EPA and repeal the Clean Air Act and other laws providing the standing for environmental regulations. We must enact new laws, targeted and narrow, that will keep us from fouling our nest, but that make sense. ALARA is now more harmful (actually) and dangerous (in potential) than the hazards targeted.

    Eliminate EPA and the laws they pretend to stand on; problem solved.

  68. @Lonnie E. Schubert at 4:43 am
    I’m with you in sprit, but not tactics.
    Eliminating the EPA and repealing the Clean Air Act is a fool’s errand.
    Putting the EPA on a legislative leash and a codified corral can be justified with the public. EPA regulations have the force of law. EPA has its own armed agents. It acts as a parallel government insolated from public accountability.

    Congress should put its foot down and insist, via the February 2014 that
    1: All future EPA regulations have no force of law until they are passed by Congress and signed by the President AS LAW.
    2: CO2 and CH2 are not pollutants under the Clean Air Act as written by Congress.
    3. All past regulations involving CO2 or CH4 as greenhouse gases or carbon pollution are null and void until they are resubmitted for Congressional approval and signing by the President.

    That is a defensible stand. It will take a threat of government shutdown to make it happen.
    Whether it be Travis at the Alamo or Chamberlain at Little Round Top will depend upon the metal of the defenders and leadership — a disheartening thought that.

    A fight by Congress on this principled stand on Separation of Powers at the same time as SCOTUS hears the EPA Clean Air Act case, is a confluence events that must not be squandered. A simultaneous fight in Congress and SCOTUS against the EPA’s overreach can increase the chances of success of both actions.

  69. Zeke Hausfather says:
    December 17, 2013 at 11:20 am

    I’m not entirely sure how the discussion of the tropical hotspot is supposed to counter the EPA’s argument

    CO2’s effects depend on it being a forcing (Arrhenius, etc.)
    No forcing is operating to heat the planet (hotspot missing)
    CO2 is not heating the planet. QED

    The syllogism is simple and clear.

  70. Many of you understand and appreciate the role of EPA. EPA isn’t strict enough. They don’t press criminal charges against the oil, coal or other polluters like the Hanford radioactive waste leaking in Oregon. Like it our not our planet is heating up because you and I sit back and do nothing to stop it. Corporations have a single goal – profits. They will kill every last one of us to get rich.

    The brainwashing of the American people is impressive – lulled into playing with our phone, music, bling, eye candy, that shuts ordinarily caring people to shut down and submit to them.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

  71. Tehachapi Gal,

    Please take your Chicken Little scares elsewhere. This is a science site, not a wild-eyed scare site. It is you who is being brainwashed, not the rest of us.

    Paul Erlich has been thoroughly discredited. Not one single prediction he has ever made over the past 30+ years has happened. Not a single one.

    Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about Erlich? He is selling a book. To make money. His book would not sell, and thus he would make no money, if he told the truth: that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Nothing. Everything being observed now has happened before — and to a much greater degree.

    Maybe you believe people who have always been 100% wrong. But for the rest of us, that is not the way to bet.

  72. @Tehachapi Gal at 7:03 pm
    The brainwashing of the American people is impressive

    I can’t argue with that. You are a prime example.

    Go back and reread the US Constitution, assuming you read it the first time. Pay particular attention to its Preamble.

    WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The “Blessings of Liberty” have been brainwashed out of most of the American people. With such brainwashing, the EPA now operates as a shadow government antithetical to the concept of Liberty and outside the clauses of the Constitution.

Comments are closed.