Back on October 17th, and in regards to the Copenhagen Boondoggle, I posted Countdown To The End Of Our Sovereignty. Back then, I wondered how would the current administration would implement this Carbon Emission Control Treaty, if our Constitution Requires 2/3rd of our Senate to ratify it.
Back then, I wondered:
Back then, many who commented to the post, expressed skepticism an poohoo'd the notion. But I beg to differ.
As actions reflects, it is going to be a De Facto implementation of this treaty. Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson declared Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas that threaten the public health. Thus, under the Clean Air Act, the Executive Branch of our Government has circumvented the Legislative Branch, and will act as if The Copenhagen Treaty has been ratified.
Of course, this is a direct violation of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of our Constitution. But who gives a flying fig about that 18th Century anachronism now a days.
Boq
The Clean Air Act, stupid as it is (in this context), is not an end-run around the Legislature.
They, after all, enacted it, with the very provisions used to declare CO2 a "pollutant", a process that began well before Copenhagen.
That the effect of this EPA decision is kinda-sorta-like the Copenhagen treaty does not, legally or logically, make it an unconstitutional enactment of it.
(Any more than, for instance, the Executive deciding to stop using landmines would could as an illegal enactment of the unratified Landmine Treaty.)
It's a daft decision, but it's the Legislature's own laws coming back to bite us on the ass - until public pressure forces them to exempt CO2 from EPA governance.
These days, it's merely some additional noise generators for the insane clown posse...
They shouldn't leave the duct tape in place forever, of course, since this is just a *symbolic* act.
I figure 10 minutes should be plenty of time...
I'm thinking that said Agency needs to be brought into full compliance with the Clean Air Act under the current Carbon Dioxide determination-that being they need to be forced to move out of any office not powered by zero-emissions sources, be relieved of any non-zero-emissions vehicles in their fleets (including staff cars and limousines), etc. etc.
IF they then can perform their duties after being brought into compliance, they should by all means move forward on enforcing that ruling on someone else-but not before demonstrating the ability to achieve compliance at or above the level they intend to enforce on non-governmental persons...