Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1 VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab 
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy

    By Peggy Venable
    The Washington Times
    6:08 p.m., Wednesday, August 25, 2010

    The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.

    President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.

    The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.

    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:

    "In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

    Texas leaders are . . . CONTINUED
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,908
    When I saw Venable in the title, I thought this:
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    When I saw Venable in the title, I thought this:
    Understandable that you'd equate Reds and Red State. :D
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    the Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    19
    OF COURSE, [wannabe] Emperor Obama sees total Federal control over as much as can be as the only way to do things, he and his ilk are only concerned with acquiring more power over everyone's lives and keeping it that way, following the traditions of his idols, Stalin, Mao, Lenin.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    I don't know Peggy Venable from Jack, but she's running her mouth and sounding like a big friggin' idiot.

    President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.

    The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.
    Um... yeah, dummy, yeah they do.

    You know who says so??

    The Supreme fucking court. The conservative-leaning supreme court said so back in 2007....

    Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

    ...snip...

    First, the petitioners were found to have standing.[5] Justice Stevens reasoned that the states had a particularly strong interest in the standing analysis.[6] The majority cited Justice Holmes' opinion in Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.:

    ...snip...

    Second, the Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act provides:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massach...tection_Agency

    End of thread. Some better educated Venable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,888
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    The Supreme fucking court.
    You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?
    He never has - he's just stopped playing like he did.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,888
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    He never has - he's just stopped playing like he did.
    Badcat could likely prove with his new program that this is not the same individual that opened the account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?
    No, I just can't believe 3 years after SCOTUS already ruled on this, some dimwit still doesn't get it.

    The EPA can and should be regulating greenhouse gasses.

    I respect the court's decision, the person who wrote the article does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    No, I just can't believe 3 years after SCOTUS already ruled on this, some dimwit still doesn't get it.

    The EPA can and should be regulating greenhouse gasses.

    I respect the court's decision, the person who wrote the article does not.
    The court has been wrong before. Dred Scott anyone?? And please save the crap that a conservative court made the ruling. Having 4 strict constructionist justices does not give conservative a majority.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •