Posted on 06/02/2017 10:46:38 AM PDT by blam
I have no problem with demanding that — in the interest of slowing “global warming” — Mr. Bloomberg reduce the energy used by the renters of his computer terminals by 25%.
If this demand means that Bloomberg must reduce the hours per day that his Bloomberg Network is permitted to transmit data by 25% — well, that would be a “feature”.
We wonder how the thirty cities, three states, more than 80 university presidents, and more than 100 companies will backpedal when they realize that there is NO basis for man made climate change. There are no clear, direct, and scientifically-proven linkages between human CO2 production and climate change.
Are these low information decision makers capable of understanding real science and information?
Real science issues and data will be forthcoming for those who actually are willing to take a look. The hoax will be presented as the fake news it is, and has been for a long time.
It sounds like the intent is to self-impose the emission limits, NOT pay the U.S. share of the $100 billion dollars per year to go from developed countries to developing ones. So just a small, rather inconsequential part of the agreement in terms of money.
The United States of America is out of the Paris Accord. Period.
It may be even less than that. I heard a radio byte from the Mayor of Pittsburgh about (paraphrase) “showing solidarity with the ideals of Paris.”
1) I doubt they are going to hamstring their local industries.
2) The municipal and state actors do need to be elected and when local taxes rise, local energy costs come with surcharges and jobs are impacted, they may back off.
3) Universities can and do fire chancellors who are fiscally irresponsible. Alumni have a vote by withholding donations. Parents can elect to not send their children to those schools.
That said, Moonbeam is going to China, hat in hand. There are many Chinese in the pricier sections of CA, WA and OR. China may see this as a beachhead or they may act wisely and “deem” it a domestic political matter. The Administration may or may not invoke the Logan Act. Money is fungible and China has ways to funnel funds to CA and WA that are below the radar, although with Palantir, that may be harder these days, especially since Peter Thiel supports Trump.
Dicey plays for what looks to be grandstanding. The individual billionaires may fritter away their own money as they wish, but they will be called out on every hypocritical action from here forward.
Once again, Trump has focused the media and they will be shutting down genuine climate experts on live TV, which is a huge tell not lost on the public. Real discussion everywhere on climate fact will only help us.
We have affluent relatives who now like to say “Well, I’ve always been a socialist, you know.” Yeah, right. Not as far as we can see. They also bitch about high property taxes, regulations affecting repair and maintenance of their various properties and, well, the general cuckery we all know so well. Some have aligned themselves with pols who may be finally brought to heel for various acts of malfeasance.
None of these idiots can avoid the results they are bringing down upon themselves.
I would guess a private company can only do what is legal in the municipality they are physically in. If a state or municipality wants to enact measures that are unconstitutional, (ie., punitive regulatory treatment/forced displacement of citizens) then they might not have legal standing to do so. But I’m not an attny, I only read stuff :)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+review
In the United States, the supremacy of national law is established by Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Called the Supremacy Clause, it states that “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.” It goes on to say that, “judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” This means that state laws may not violate the U.S. constitution and that all state courts must uphold the national law. State courts uphold the national law through judicial review.
Through judicial review, state courts determine whether or not state executive acts or state statutes are valid. They base such rulings on the principle that a state law that violates the U.S. constitution is invalid. They also decide the constitutionality of state laws under state constitutions. If, however, state constitutions contradict the U.S. Constitution, or any other national statute, the state constitution must yield. The highest state court to decide such issues is the state supreme court.
Thank you very much for your post. I appreciate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.