Wonder if passing nullification act(s) would suffice....
We learned from the immigration debate that states aren’t responsible for enforcing federal laws.
lol.
All we are saying, is give War a chance.
SECEDE!
END THE EPA...EDU...INTERIOR....ENERGY..ETCETC.
HUCK HAS A PETITION DRIVE TO REPEAL OBAMACARE.
It is time to start a push to end agencies that rule by fiat, without the approval of the people ( House)
To hell with the Court battle...
Tell the Marxist bastards at the EPA to come to Texas and MAKE US obey!
Then when the a-holes arrive...
You Texans open up on them with EVERYTHING you got!
ANNIHILATE them!!!
(What can a state do if it loses in court?)
... make damn sure epa loses its life
STATES have rights, they can oped out and refuse to heel to the feds. Soveriegn Rights do work.
Carbon-emission = liberal-commies speaking.
All agents of the federal gubmint found in any given state should be “detained” by local law enforcement.
True enough. Obama doesn't need legislation to continue waging war against America. There are more than enough federal agencies, rules, regulations, regulators, and policies, already in place, to accommodate his every wish to disrupt and destroy.
For decades folks moaned, 'well this or that federal policy-rule-regulation-mandate almost seems reasonable. But what if it gets in the wrong hands?' Well, all these hundreds of thousands federal mandates, are now in the wrong hands. So, we are about to realize the feared "what if" scenario.
Global Warming on Free Republic
That is illegal. The CAA act does not allow them to only regulate large sources.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday effectively declared Texas unfit to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions and took over carbon dioxide permitting of any new or expanding industrial facilities starting Jan. 2.
What can you do? Pronounce them unfit right back and continue to operate the state permitting process! The EPA is on thin political ground here and the more Washington overreaches, the more people will come to believe they've crossed the line, so (a) don't worry too much about it, and (b) consider trying to goad them into doing something that will REALLY piss people off.
What would probably happen in practice is that the EPA would sue the state and the feds would withhold "federal grant money". So then Texas instructs state employers to remit their federal tax withholding payments to them instead of directly to the feds, deducts the amount of "federal money" improperly being withheld, and sends the rest on to Washington.
But the original question was what to do if you lose in court. Which brings us to the bizarre paradox of state vs. federal jurisprudence. Having a federal court decide cases pitting the feds against states or groups of states is a ludicrous idea, similar to having federal courts rule on Constitutionality of legislation. Have you ever been interviewed for jury duty? They'll exclude you if you know some of the parties, even one of the lawyers or the judge. So why states view as binding a ruling where they lose to the feds in a federal court is beyond me, but certainly not a state of affairs that can persist indefinitely.
But what's the alternative? you may ask. As bad as the feds are, we certainly don't want to subject ourselves to the whim of some world court, staffed by tyrants and imbeciles, so what's to be done? Well, how about issues like this being heard before a panel of state jurists from states not involved in the immediate dispute. They'd be impartial on the merits of a given case, except for a bias to preserve state power, which is exactly what you want. The bias would be in favor of the state unless they were doing something completely egregious, which is perfect.
What was the outcome? I assume they’re still running.