Comments for It's De Facto

It's De Facto

2009-12-08T14:42:54Z

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:

Alternatively, I wouldn't put it past our government de facto ratify this treaty by acting in accordance to its mandates. Even if de jure, our Senate never ratifies this abomination.

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

Comment from BillT on 2009-12-10

2009-12-10T12:07:44Z

I fully-expect the EPA to follow Congress' lead on this: "We don't have to do it, but you do -- because we're infinitely smarter than the rest of you, and we said so."

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-12-10

2009-12-10T08:47:06Z

Actually, Bill, I was thinkng more along the lines of figuring out how many vehicles the EPA has that aren't zero-emissions compliant, how many of their offices and facilities are heated by gas/oil or propane furnaces, how many of their offices use electricity produced by the burning of petrochemicals or solid hydrocarbons (Oil or Coal), and how many of their officials ride around in gas-guzzling limousines. (not to mention diesel/JP-8 fueled aircraft, AvGas powered planes, etc. etc.)

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...

Comment from BillT on 2009-12-09

2009-12-09T10:00:20Z

Good point, Cannonshop! I think the carbon-dioxide exhaling hierarchs of the EPA should take measures to protect their employees by placing duct tape over the mouths and nostrils of everyone in HQEPA over the grade of GS-8.

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...

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-12-09

2009-12-09T07:35:45Z

YOu know, things like this make me wonder what would happen if they passed a law requiring AGENCIES to comply with their own regulations.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2009-12-08

2009-12-09T05:47:07Z

But, but, the local drug pigs bust people all the time for having CO2 bottles leaking out into their pot growhouses! It makes the plants grow faster! If the plants were food-bearing plants, that would mean we'd have more food!

Comment from BillT on 2009-12-08

2009-12-09T04:55:53Z

The EPA has long-since turned into nothing but a bureaucracy with a few scientists on the payroll to provide the illusion that it's pronouncements are based on *science*.

These days, it's merely some additional noise generators for the insane clown posse...

Comment from Miss Ladybug on 2009-12-08

2009-12-09T01:26:33Z

Guess we all need to figure out how to get by without breathing...

Comment from Sigivald on 2009-12-08

2009-12-08T20:42:32Z

That argument doesn't work.

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.

Comment from eric on 2009-12-08

2009-12-08T19:46:29Z

Yippie, a chance to keep our feet dry around here in the Lowlands! Thank you Chosen One.