Posted on 01/30/2019 10:53:09 AM PST by CedarDave
“So, there are 19 states where this Glo-Bull warming insanity is being foisted on their citizens?”
If these states can being in private businesses to solve for their problem and it doesn’t result in higher fees or more taxes, I wish them well.
But but....it’s not an agreement. It’s a....”coalition”! : )
Oh good. In years past, PG&E would have been deemed Too Big to Fail but the state can’t afford to bail them out now.
Some of the solar companies that will probably fold are in the business of leasing rooftop solar panels to homeowners.
Follow the money; the Glo-Bull warming scam ALWAYS results in higher costs as We the People pay their artificially imposed higher taxes and fees!
The entire scam is about MONEY! Cf. OwlBore’s hundred ++ million BUX increase in net worth since 2000!
http://americanskynews.com/articles-a.htm
Global scam, real reason for weather change.
Global cooling starting.
Thanks for the lead - interesting reading for later.
It has been enacted into law in 12 states with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 98 more electoral votes. It has passed at least one house in 11 additional states with 89 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR) and has been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional states with 26 electoral votes (GA, MO).
The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate.
National Popular Vote’s Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA).
As contracts between states, compacts affect the rights and responsibilities of states party to them (and their citizens); the US Supreme Court has indicated that the interests of non-party states could be a factor when determining whether congressional consent is required.
A compact typically includes provisions regarding its purpose; specific terms with respect to the subject of the compact; in some cases, establishment of an interstate agency to administer the compact or some other method of administration; sources of funding; and other contract terms like dispute resolution, enforcement, termination of the compact, or withdrawal of a member. Numerous examples of compacts and the interstate agencies formed to administer them are available online.
C. Consented to by Congress, if Required
Although the US Constitution contains an express requirement for approval by Congress of compacts between states, the US Supreme Court has held that some agreements between states do not require such congressional consent. Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”[14] The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]
The Constitution does not specify the timing or form of congressional consent to interstate compacts. [16] Although Congress typically consents to compacts before they are executed by the states party to them, Congress may also consent after the fact, when the subject of the agreement could not be fully considered until then.[17] In addition, while congressional consent is usually express, it may also be inferred based on the circumstances.[18] Congress may condition its consent subject to the compact containing suitable terms that do not violate limitations set forth in the Constitution.[19] Further, when Congress does consent to a compact, Congress does not thereby give up or reduce any of its constitutional powers.
Odd. They have done it several times as I recall.
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.