2009-06-28, 17:30 | Link #3121 | |
Wiggle Your Big Toe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Age: 33
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-06-28, 18:58 | Link #3122 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-06-28, 21:16 | Link #3123 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Spend tax yen on welfare, not anime museum, Hatoyama says
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps, the law prevents the bankruptcy of some newspapers that people rarely buy but it is no doubt at the same time a threat to the freedom of the press and also freedom of speech. For that matter, I doubt the bill will successfully pass. More over, the bill only affect certain nations and all you got to do is avoid posting links of those certain nations, its all fine! Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2009-06-28 at 21:34. Reason: added topic. |
||
2009-06-29, 08:26 | Link #3124 | |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-06-29, 11:36 | Link #3125 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-06-29, 13:09 | Link #3126 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-06-29, 14:48 | Link #3127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
^^ Environmental issues are not interstate commerce......just saying..........
And, it looks like you didn't read the entire article either. The Arizona bill does apply to cap and trade. Quote:
http://www.azstarnet.com/business/298096 Regardless of how you try to spin this, this bill WILL be about States rights. |
|
2009-06-29, 15:12 | Link #3128 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Actually, environmental issues are *regional* ... which means they often don't follow political state lines (like sharing a river or one state's air crap blowing into another). Every once in a while you hear some wishful thinking about re-organizing the US along bioregional lines (like the Cascadia region, etc) but it usually stalls out because some areas of the country just suck resource-wise
I actually prefer that states with shared resources just work something out (like the Northwest states do (mostly) with the Columbia River or salmon runs). The fed should only dip in if it isn't resolved that way. Handle problems at the most local level possible and escalate only if necessary... Hell, the West Coast of the US gets its fair share of Chinese pollution thanks to the jet stream so there are even channels for working on that problem. Having standardized procedures and protocols in place makes it more difficult for polluters to skate across state or national borders to avoid cleaning up after themselves. It is funny to watch when corporations flee to the Fed for standardization when each state seriously threatens to set their own rules and standards though
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-29 at 15:22. |
2009-06-29, 15:14 | Link #3129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Ok let's get back down to basics.
This is about the Cap and Trade bill that passed the US House of Representatives on Jun 26. Then I made a post about a bill that passed the senate in Arizona that does allow them to overturn state environmental nonsense from last year if it passes their house and their govenor signs it. It also says specifically says, "A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions." Do you understand that now? It's a legal basis for Arizona to challenge the CAP & Trade bill based on Arizona's own legislation. It becomes a MAJOR state issue at that point. Further, what part of the Constitution gives the fedzilla the power to enact federal guidelines over how much carbon you can produce, or better yet, how energy efficient a home in Texas is as opposed to Michigan? There isn't one. Those are state issues that the states have the right to rule over, not Washington DC. |
2009-06-29, 15:28 | Link #3130 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Even if it is used to try that - watch and I bet the corporations will try and end-run around states rights so they don't have to contend with a balkanized set of standards. Most corporations that operate across state lines HATE "state's rights" for that reason.
I think it'll be interesting to see how Arizona's maneuver plays out, if that is what they're trying, because the Fed will have to show that carbon emission control does have interstate implications whether or not it actually moves across state lines. IANAL but I can imagine some deft and twisty debate logic from either side.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-29 at 15:46. |
2009-06-29, 15:43 | Link #3131 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
The actual bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1147p.pdf As you can see, it applies specificly to state agencies. It bans state emission regulations and state cap and trade laws. It does not and cannot cover the federal cap and trade bill. Quote:
As for what part of the constitution, environmental regualtions are imposed on businesses. As such it's covered under section 8 of the constitution reguarding the regulation of interstate commerce. States have a right to pass their own intra state regulations that apply within the state, and the federal government has a right to pass interstate regulations that apply to all the states. Regardless, it's irrelevent because this is a bill that applies to a state agency and nothing else. There's no dispute over states rights here at all.
__________________
|
||
2009-06-29, 17:52 | Link #3132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
How does environmental issues affect interstate commerce? Interstate commerce is the actual trade that happens between States. How does California's building code affect interstate commerce? Remember, there is a 300 page amendment to the cap and trade bill that will force California's building code on the other 49 States.
|
2009-06-29, 17:53 | Link #3133 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-06-29, 19:40 | Link #3134 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, let's be honest here. The whole state's rights thing is a red herring. Not many on the right had much of a problem when Bushy expanded the federal government's powers, because he was doing stuff they supported. The problem here is "them dirty liberals" are in charge now and doing things that the neo-cons don't like, such as listening to scientists when making environmental policy.
__________________
|
||
2009-06-29, 23:04 | Link #3135 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
US soldiers leaving Iraq's cities
Quote:
|
|
2009-06-29, 23:48 | Link #3136 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
I read the bill you linked and fail to see how you are linking it to barring the state of Arizona from asserting state rights against the Cap and Trade legislation on the federal level. I am going to say this again, "The Arizona Bill only pertains to the state of Arizona." I agree with you that it only pertains to the state of Arizona and it's agencies. If you understood that then you can read on. Now, if you understood the above, you might possibly grasp the concept that the people of Arizona might not like the fedzilla attempting to push a federal cap and trade style law on them based on the fact that they ban it at the state level from their own state agencies. Maybe just, they might take offense to it and file injunctions and appeals specifically citing their own laws and possibly even cite the 8th section of the Constitution and say that it is not an acceptable expansion of federal government to regulate their carbon dioxide output. That would be the push for state sovereignty that I was mentioning. Now, you might not like to hear this, but the fedzilla pushing a code of building and energy efficiency on a building is far exceeding the powers granted the federal government in the Constitution. Regardless if a majority in the House or Senate approves it, anything that the states do that is not involved in interstate commerce is not available for regulation. As for your argument over power generation, I will give you a perfect example. Most municipal utilities in the west generate their own power and distribute it on a local or state level. They do not engage in interstate commerce. So, if they are not engaging in interstate commerce, how can the fedzilla regulate their right to conduct commerce? The answer is simple, the fedzilla can not regulate their commerce as it is not interstate. Now if they are selling power across state lines, then the fed can regulate according to the Constitution ( and if this cap and trade bill does go into effect, I think we will see the end of power companies selling power across State lines...) Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by mg1942; 2009-06-30 at 00:17. |
|||
2009-06-30, 01:06 | Link #3137 | |||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2009-06-30, 01:45 | Link #3138 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Wow. You're really "liberal." Who opposes climate change? It's been changing since forever. "That climate changing" is not contested but "as a result of human activities" is. Well, actually, it can't be contested, such vague and general thing like "human activities." Breathing is an activity, no? Oh no, that's politically incorrect because activities equal factories, cars... and the army, oh wait, that's politically incorrect too.
Quote:
Last edited by iLney; 2009-06-30 at 02:04. |
|
2009-06-30, 02:10 | Link #3139 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Japan holds 3 accused of trading for NKorea
Quote:
|
|
2009-06-30, 03:01 | Link #3140 | |
On a sabbatical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|