Posted on 11/21/2021 6:58:04 PM PST by T Ruth
This term the Supreme Court will hear four consolidated cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. That question will impact all electricity consumers, but the cases may have larger implications for the ever-expanding reach of the administrative state.
The lead case—West Virginia v. EPA—questions the constitutionality of an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act that, according to a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, gives the EPA broad power to regulate almost any part of the economy that produces greenhouse gases. Joining West Virginia are three other petitioners who are also challenging the EPA’s authority to implement binding nationwide standards.
These cases arise out of more than a decade of legal, regulatory, and congressional turmoil over whether and how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court settled the question of “whether,” determining that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, despite silence from Congress in the statute. What seemed like esoteric statutory interpretation opened the door for the EPA to set economic policy as it established climate policy.
“How” remains an open question that Congress has been unwilling to legislate on, knowing that policies that increase energy costs for questionable environmental benefits do not sit well with its constituents.
Electricity is a major driver of economic activity, powering homes, schools, places of worship, businesses, and factories. Nearly 60% of Americans’ electricity today comes from natural gas and coal power plants, which emit greenhouse gases.
While it appears the question that the Supreme Court answered in 2007 will not be revisited, the court will evaluate the EPA’s two attempts since then ***
***
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
No standing.
They don’t need to honor no stinking’ 10Th Amendment!
(The Court is in willful abeyance and has been since the 1930s.)
LOL. No parking.
And to think we have two supposed Republican POTI to thank for this, Nixon and Bush II.
Wickard v. Filburn
... andfolds like a cheap suit.
... andfolds like a cheap suit.
“Conclusion
Unanimous decision for Wickard
majority opinion by Robert H. Jackson”
How did we get along without an EPA? Let’s find out.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
CO2 is essential for life.
Since when has congress given a fig for what their constituents think.
“CO2 is not a pollutant.
CO2 is essential for life.”
And all life on the planet would do well with more of it.
Overruled that decision, along with United States v. Darby, and we will most of the way back to having Commerce Clause being within the limits intended by the Founding Fathers.
Screw these EPA tyrants! They make all of our lives more expensive and miserable.
Yep. RINOs would rather campaign against the EPA than actually do something about them,
Since you mentioned Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard), using inappropriate terms like "concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it in Wickard.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The 10th Amendment means that the Constitution's silence on environmental protections actually means the following.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments manufacturing crises to oppress everybody under their boots...
Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Again, insights welcome.
Again, insights welcome.
I'm not saying, you'll just have to guess. :)
Let’s hope they rule that since politicians emit voluminous amounts of CO2 while speaking, they must be regulating and gagged.
Would homeowners with a big mud puddle in their driveway have standing contest the EPA’s designation of it as a wetland?
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.