Via press release from:
Senators to Vote on Whether to Cede Congressional Authority to the EPA
Washington, D.C. – Senators will soon consider a resolution to pare back an Environmental Protection Agency plan to regulate greenhouse gases – a plan that would raise energy costs.
On June 10, the U.S. Senate will consider a “resolution of disapproval” regarding a 2009 ruling made by the EPA in late 2009 claiming six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. This makes these gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
“The EPA’s endangerment finding endangers our economy and our liberty,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “The EPA’s effort to regulate greenhouse gases will affect virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives. In expert opinion, this will result in higher energy costs and job losses while having — by their own admission — virtually no effect on cooling global climate.”
Senate Joint Resolution 26, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the administrative ruling. This would allow elected representatives to deliberate and pass their own regulations as Congress sees fit.
“I don’t want an unelected bureaucrat imposing rules and regulations on businesses that are essentially a tax on energy and will be passed along to consumers — many of whom are just getting by as it is,” said Tom Borelli, director of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
“Opposition to the cap-and-trade bill that was jammed through the House of Representatives is one of the key positions of the tea parties, and this endangerment finding is cap-and-trade by other means,” noted Deneen Borelli. “Americans are already skeptical enough of lawmakers these days. Watching them pass up an opportunity to do what they were sent to Washington for will restore no lost faith in the government.”
“This resolution is a major indicator of where our republic is headed. Senators will determine if they are going to cede their authority as an elected representative of the people to largely unaccountable bureaucrats,” added Tom Borelli. “While the White House is eager for the EPA to seize regulatory authority, rank-and-file Americans such as those found in the tea party movement are troubled and will be watching to see who will be for and who will be against this massive federal power grab.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and funded primarily by the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual contributors. Less than one percent of funding is received from corporations.
Another possible reason for “Big Oil” to participate in the CO2 charade: When oil prices go up, “Big Oil” always seems to make more profit.
Any such act would be completely unConstitutional, as the Congress has no such authority under said Constitution. That is, the Congress cannot legally surrender any of its powers to an inferior agency of government.
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
– Norton v Shelby County, U.S. Supreme Court,[118 US 425,(1886).]
We can all see this for what it is–cap and trade will never pass legislation–so they rule by proxy, i.e., the EPA. What other proxy rules are coming down the pike? Does the FCC ring a bell?
It’s tyranny-creep.
@ur momisugly wws
You beat me to it! You’re absolutely correct. Big oil is for “tax and trade” because it effectively eliminates competition. As far as cost goes, they’ll simply pass it on to the consumers. It is a “no lose” scenario for them. They know for at the very least the next few decades, the earth will still rely on oil for much of our energy needs. There’s simply no way around it. The only thing a “cap and trade” scheme would do, is it would punish Americans for engaging in commerce and industrialization. Not that we do some much of that today anyway. One day, we will come to learn that the service industry isn’t really an industry. It produces nothing tangible or anything of intrinsic value. Sigh.
pgosselin says:
June 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
kind of a fluffy, sticky, loathsome alien, creeping along your limbs while eating your flesh….
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, is on record as saying that she thinks it would be best if the CO2 issue were handled by the legislature. A safe thing for any administrator to say about a controversial issue but surely those are wise words.
Unelected bureaucrats running your affairs, running rough-shod over the will of the people? Better watch out, American friends, you may end up like the EU, where 27 unelected EU commissioners pass laws which MUST – by treaty – be made law in member nation states.
And I would quit voting for the mainstream parties and vote for some independents instead. Someone who doesn’t suck up to the money. Put it this way: in the UK the ex-Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson (Labour), likes to hobnob with the Rothschildes; so does George Osborne, the current (Tory) Chancellor of the Exchequer. And yes, _Jim, I can cite references if required.
Get real folks. Just say no. Loudly.
Enneagram says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:31 am
Since when, non elected individuals, like those EPA, have the right to govern upon people? In any case they could only advice and recommend but never enforce.
Congress has been doing this for many years. They will write a “relatively” simple law leaving the particulars to a government bureaucrat agency to ‘promulgate’ regulations.
Those rules should then have to be voted on by Congress for them to take effect. They also should have a sunset clause wherein they must be reconsidered after a few years. This would have the effect of taming down the damage that zealous bureaucrats can do to us.
HankHenry says:{June 7, 2010 at 1:00 pm}
“Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, is on record as saying that she thinks it would be best if the CO2 issue were handled by the legislature. A safe thing for any administrator to say about a controversial issue but surely those are wise words.”
She is also the person who said that all Americans have a right to a stable climate.
She is another ignorant fool who spouts garbage written by someone else.
It’s not just big oil at the cap and trade table–it’s a lot of utility companies too. As the chairman of Duke Power put it a couple years ago “If you are not at the table, you will be on the menu.” No one wants to be on the menu if they can avoid it, so it will be us small fry consumers who will have to fill it out.
Of course you can call your rep and whine or elect an independent who will, after one term in office, do the same things being done now, in most, not all cases. Until we take the money out of the election process this will go on and on and on. Still cannot figure how to make up for the lefties controlling the news media though, once you take the $$$ out of the election process. Would also be a good thing if the congress had to live by the same laws they pass on the rest of us.
And who did not already know that the taxes get passed along to the consumer? All taxes end up at the consumer’s door step. Unfortunately there is no national referendum or we could get a constitutional amendment passed. Right now the congress must pass it or the individual states. Might have a slim chance of the states doing it, if things get bad enough. And all you people talking about the constitution, forget about the supreme court helping out. 4 out of 9 of them do not even believe in the second amendment being an individual right and the other 5 don’t understand what “infringement” means based upon their last decision on same.
Ed_B says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
” could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:”
Big Oil isn’t impacted by cap and trade at all. The only oil burned to produce electricity in the US is waste oil.
Now if they were proposing a $2/gallon gasoline tax. Big Oil would be upset.
harrywr2,
An argument often invoked by Senator Kerry is that the current cap and trade bill is about energy security.
A 2$ a gallon gas tax won’t help with energy security. But a 10$/barrel tax on IMPORTED oil might have such an effect.
Problem, more domestic drilling !
If someone already posted this link, my apologies, I didn’t see it anywhere in a quick scan of responses.
You can send a canned OR personalized message to your Senators through this website:
http://freedomaction.org/index.php/take-action?url=http://capwiz.com/freedomaction/issues/alert/?alertid=15034281&utm_source=NOT+EVIL+ALL+CONTACTS&utm_campaign=7bd25b9320-Weekly+blast+3%2F3%2F2010&utm_medium=email
A year ago, this would have been a complete waste of time in my state, Mass, but at least there’s Scott Brown now, so who knows?
JimB
I really hope the US Senate will take away these regulating powers from EPA.
That would be the first real step in the ‘de-AGW-ing’ of the US society and the rest of the world. My goal would be an 80% reduction of AGW-nonsense this year.
I’m afraid this situation is for politicians like walking into quicksand and still trying to get to the other side of the pool anyhow, to reach a Fata Morgana. At some point, when the sun sets and the Fata Morgana is gone, they may have gone too far in already and won’t be able to get out of the mess anymore.
May reason win from fear!
WAKE UP ARKANSAS !!! Put your thinking caps back on !!!
Look what pond scum has raised the most money for Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter’s Primary Challenge To Senator Blanche Lincoln…
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees International Union, etc.
Now, I personally invested considerable effort to help make a more moderate democrat out of Blanche Lincoln and she has. Got her to back off several nutty liberal stances, such as gun and ammunition taxes and restrictions as well as to support Murkowski’s bill to overturn the EPA ruling on CO2 as a hazardous substance. If you think Ms. Lincoln is too liberal, just you watch Bill Halter go to work trying to force you to ‘do without’ for the sake of the planet!
It will make the republican ‘do without’ of full time jobs with benefits, good roads, bridges and good infrastructure, etc… for the sake of billionaires and their love of war look like childs play.
Jim G says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:11 am
we would eliminate a great many of the left wing voters reading propaganda from the press as we know that many cannot read. Anyone have any other ideas on how to fix this problem?
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
Article I Section 1 of the US constitution.
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”
If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.
“this will result in higher energy costs and job losses while having — by their own admission — virtually no effect on cooling global climate.”
Understatement of the month there. The assumption being that “cooling global climate” has anything at all to do with what is going on. Even for the most rabid planet saver, surely the dry ice must be dissipating by now.
As to why Big Energy in general supports AGW Hysteria in general —
Florida P&L is one of the largest energy utilities in the country, having a large nuke installation and loads and loads of coal plants. They run about $2 billion in revenue annually. They have paid no taxes for three years now, because they are also the largest owner of Wind Phalanxes in the country.
Private enterprise is always smarter than the politicians and the bureaucrats; any fancy system dreamed up by the latter can and will be gamed by the former — just ask
EnronGE.To defund the EPA we must control the House of Representatives.
All appropriations MUST originate in the house. The senate has no power to fund anything. Cut off the money completely. If the senate and el presedente raise a fuss,
too bad they can’t generate the money out of thin air without an appropriation.
Should they try, they can be impeached.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can give away power … They have to do it by legislation, which fortunately can then be repealed.
” David Segesta says: June 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Article I Section 1 of the US constitution.
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”
If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
David, regulatory agencies do this all the time. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has hundreds of rules on acceptable methods to build and fly airplanes. Non-compliance includes criminal penalties. Another example: If you built a powerful unlicensed radio transmitter, the FCC will send the sheriff to shut you down and haul you off to jail. Endless examples…..
Mac the Knife, Enneagram, and others regarding EPA’s authority.
The U.S. has long held that Congress may delegate to various agencies the legislative powers that it holds itself. The Supreme Court has upheld various challenges to this, although there are limits. see this link for discussion and court cases:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html
The basic idea is that Congress does not have the time, nor the man-power to adequately address all the myriad issues of a modern, large, and complex government. There are literally hundreds of Federal agencies that take their authority from this doctrine, and the EPA is but one of them. see this link for a listing of Agencies.
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml