PDA

View Full Version : Stop the Unconstitutional, Jobs-Killing, EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide




FrankRep
01-29-2010, 01:34 PM
We should be contacting Congress in opposition to the unconstitutional, jobs-killing, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.


Action: Email Congress
http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=20496&SiteID=-1


Stop the Unconstitutional, Jobs-Killing, EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide (http://www.jbs.org/energy-blog/5909-stop-the-unconstitutional-job-killing-epa-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide)


Larry Greenley | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Friday, 29 January 2010


Just in time to bolster President Obama's "green" credentials at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on December 7, 2009: "Today I'm proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act" (view video (http://bit.ly/bVNMq3)).

So, even though the cap and trade energy tax bill was stalled in the U.S. Senate, President Obama was able to point to the EPA announcement in Copenhagen to show the commitment of the U.S. government to take measures to reduce greenhouse gases as part of the whole global warming/climate change charade being participated in by our political, news media, and academic elites.

The whole idea of the EPA, an executive branch agency which was created by President Richard Nixon through an executive order in 1970, creating environmental regulations with the force of law is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5887-senators-try-to-regain-legislative-authority-over-epa) The first sentence of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states very simply: "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." This means all law-making power resides in Congress. So, if the federal government undertakes to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress must be passing the regulatory laws, not the EPA. However, even Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate the production of greenhouse gases.

YouTube - EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Announces Endangerment Findings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TI3HnvJjtM)

Fortunately, there is a movement in Congress to prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. There are two bills in the House and one proposed amendment in the Senate to do just this.

The first bill in the House is H.R. 391 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h391_ih.xml) which was introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on January 9, 2009 and which currently has 151 cosponsors. The purpose of this bill is to: (1) stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide; and (2) by expliciting stating, "Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming."

The second bill in the House is H.R. 4396 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h4396_ih.xml) which was introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) on December 16, 2009. This bill would prohibit EPA regulation of greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) has taken a different approach in the Senate. She has introduced a resolution (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/01/murkowski-greenhouse-gas-emissions-epa.html), which is supported by 35 Republicans and three Democrats so far, that could be used as an amendment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/murkowski-amendment.pdf) and attached to the bill of her choice or introduced as a standalone bill. The purpose of this resolution is "To prohibit the use of funds to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to certain regulations." Senator Murkowski's approach is much narrower than the two House bills in that it only prohibits EPA regulation of carbon dioxide for one year, and then only for non-mobile sources.

Although Senator Murkowski's resolution is a step in the right direction and deserves support, the approach of H.R. 391 is much better and should be supported for passage in both House and Senate.

[B]Contact your representative and senators (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=20496&SiteID=-1) and tell them to "stop the unconstitutional, jobs-killing, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide."



SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/energy-blog/5909-stop-the-unconstitutional-job-killing-epa-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide

jmdrake
01-29-2010, 01:48 PM
Does the JBS not now about notice and comment rulemaking? It's far more effective to contact the EPA on this than it is to contact congress. According to the law if you raise legitimate objections to proposed new rules the administrative agency MUST RESPOND to those concerns. If they don't, you can sue to have the new regulation blocked as arbitrary and capricious. I've posted about this before.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=221991

I think we should do both, but directly contacting the EPA can have an effect even if our senators and representatives betray us....again.

FrankRep
01-29-2010, 01:55 PM
Does the JBS not now about notice and comment rulemaking? It's far more effective to contact the EPA on this than it is to contact congress. According to the law if you raise legitimate objections to proposed new rules the administrative agency MUST RESPOND to those concerns. If they don't, you can sue to have the new regulation blocked as arbitrary and capricious. I've posted about this before.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=221991

I think we should do both, but directly contacting the EPA can have an effect even if our senators and representatives betray us....again.

This way, at least, the Congress and EPA both feel the heat from the American people. Both should be contacted.

FrankRep
01-29-2010, 04:05 PM
bump...