One Day in and Trump attacks the Planet

[buddhist]

I have heard this argument, and while the articles are certainly a valid source of guiding authority, they are not authority.

It is still authority, being found in U.S. Code. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Curious George]

They are there, because they are part of the current, in-force, U.S. Code.

Think of the Constitution as an Amendment of the Articles of Confederation, just like the Constitutional amendments altered the original text of the Constitution. Just because the Constitutional amendments exist doesn't mean the whole Constitution is wholly done away with, and just because the Constitution exist doesn't mean the Articles is wholly done away with either.

Which is why there are term limits on congressmen?

 

[Curious George]

No, the plain reading & intent of the commerce clause is simply the delegated authority to regulate commerce (inter-nation trading & exchange of goods) between the 50 sovereign nations. Nothing more. Nothing to do with regulating pollution.

And a burning river couldn't possibly impede that?

But we don't have to anchor in the Commerce clause? You do agree that the federal government has the power to make treaties?

 

[buddhist]

Which is why there are term limits on congressmen?

Because the Constitution amended the Articles to do so.

 

[Curious George]

It is still authority, being found in U.S. Code. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Term limits?

 

[buddhist]

And a burning river couldn't possibly impede that?

Nope.

But we don't have to anchor in the Commerce clause? You do agree that the federal government has the power to make treaties?

Yes, the federal has been delegated power to make treaties.

 

[Curious George]

Because the Constitution amended the Articles to do so.

Where?

 

[Curious George]

Nope.

Yes, the federal has been delegated power to make treaties.

And federal government has the necessary and proper clause?

 

[buddhist]

And federal government has the necessary and proper clause?

It has the authority to enact laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", yes, but nothing beyond those specific Powers delegated to it beyond what was explicitly stated, as all other Powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Curious George]

It has the authority to enact laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", yes, but nothing beyond those specific Powers delegated to it beyond what was explicitly stated, as all other Powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So if we have a treaty protecting migratory birds, theven federal government would have the power to enact law that was necessary to hold up our end of that treaty?

 

[buddhist]

So if we have a treaty protecting migratory birds, theven federal government would have the power to enact law that was necessary to hold up our end of that treaty?

No, the federal government only possesses the power to "carry into execution" the power to "make treaties" (a Power explicitly defined in the Constitution). The laws that the federal government makes to uphold its end of that treaty only applies to the territories belonging to the federal government, not to the territory belonging to each of the States.

 

[Curious George]

No, the federal government only possesses the power to "carry into execution" the power to "make treaties" (a Power explicitly defined in the Constitution). The laws that the federal government makes to uphold its end of that treaty only applies to the territories belonging to the federal government, not to the territory belonging to each of the States.

Wrong. See Missouri v. Holland. Google Scholar

If your going to attack it you would have to declare the treaty unconstitutional, nothe try to attack the necessary and proper clause.

 

[buddhist]

Wrong. See Missouri v. Holland. Google Scholar

If your going to attacall it you would have to declare the treaty unconstitutional, nothe try to attack the necessary and proper clause.

No, I was right.

As you can see, that ruling applies to the District of Missouri (a territory of the federal government), not to the sovereign nation "The State of Missouri".

 

[ShivaFan]

Here's the one's we REALLY need to keep our infants and young one's away from. Talk about destroying the planet, and demon possesed. Next thing you know Madonna will say she wants to blow up the White House, which would kill everybody in it and lots of people around it and nearby. No wait ... she DID say that. Freakin' scary freakies.

 

[Curious George]

No, I was right.

As you can see, that ruling applies to the District of Missouri (a territory of the federal government), not to the sovereign nation "The State of Missouri".

LOL are you serious? That is a u.s. supreme Court which is an article III court. Go ahead and read the actual text. That is good law to this day.

 

[omega2xx]

We are *probably* on opposite sides, but what you've said so far is ambiguous. It *could* be that you think the environment is resilient and doesn't protecting. Or it *could* be that you think the environment needs protecting and you think Obama's plan was a bad one. Or it *could* be something else...

So I'm sincerely curious.

Of course the environment needs protecting, but not from every crack pot idea the environmentalist think of. I think 90% of Obama did was bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not dangerous, foolhardy. While I agree with libertarians on many issues, the extreme for which they strive is a thin line before either an anarchy or an oligarchy depending upon the libertarian with who you are speaking.

Remember that in the real world, people generally transform these views
into politically practical agendas which retain flavors of their origins.
The same thing happens to socialists, Marxists, anarchists, communists,
fascists, etc when they join the Green, Pub or Dem parties.
So don't be too frightened...If anything, I'd wager you'd find my leadership
less dangerous than Donald's or Hilda's.

 

[Toten]

That means directing policy in a direction that acknowledges climate change, if for no other reason than there are plenty of other reasons to go in the same direction.

I can't really say what I think about climate change, but it has directed attention from other priorities in the environment, which I think the new EPA might be willing to focus on more, rather than climate change, given Scott Pruitt and Trump's history on the subject. But, ironically, both have said they are open minded about it, so I dunno...

 

[buddhist]

LOL are you serious? That is a u.s. supreme Court which is an article III court. Go ahead and read the actual text. That is good law to this day.

From the case text itself: "Valid treaties of course "are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.""

Also, there are multiple references to "matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being" .. "matters requiring national action" ... "powers of the nation" ... "national action" ... "national power" ... etc.

Judge Arba Seymour Van Valkenburgh presided over the case in its original jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - an Article IV tribunal, not an Article III court.

SCOTUS functions simultaneously as an Article III court, and also as an Article IV and I tribunal. The decision applies to the territories of the national United States including its territorial subsidiary/district of Missouri, but not to the several (federal) united States including The State of Missouri.

 

[Curious George]

From the case text itself: "Valid treaties of course "are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.""

Also, there are multiple references to "matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being" .. "matters requiring national action" ... "powers of the nation" ... "national action" ... "national power" ... etc.

SCOTUS functions simultaneously as an Article III court, and also as an Article IV and I tribunal. The decision applies to the territories of the national United States including its territorial subsidiary/district of Missouri, but not to the several (federal) united States including The State of Missouri.

You are wrong. This was an action involving the state of Missouri. It is clearly indicative of that fact. The case is on point dealing with states rights. You simply do not want to see what is before your eyes.