Don’t coal states send senators to Washington?
Can’t any senator stop a bill with the stroke of a pen? A “hold?”
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!
Bump
The hated treasonous US Congress did what was important
TO THEM.
They made themselves, their Staff, and their families
(and Moslems, of course) EXEMPT to ObamaCARE and all
Laws.
Barry has the world’s biggest race card. All he has to do is whip it out and the GOP boys wet their pants. They need to get over all the political correctness BS that is tying their hands. If the communists want to call you a “rasis”, so be it. DEFEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
Yes, the idea of a three way Government seems to be just an idea at this time... Guess that the executive has not only the power but also the ability to confuse and overcome the Congress, much less the judicial. I’d guess that this approaches the one party control - so to speak, get use to it. Maybe we should just ignore the Constitution since both the Congress and Justice departments seem to be going along.
So much to a three-way government specified by the Constitution. Worked great for a couple hundred years or so.
Yep. Coward crap-weasels in congress let let him get away with it.
Yes, excellent article that finally explained for me why the rats are such watermelons....it’s the money of course. I always figured they were working for the Arabs...and maybe so but the rats are really for whoever pays them. It makes such perfect sense.
BTW, saw O’Reilly tonight who says he has a source inside the WH who can’t be named. Says Obama has given up on being liked due to the economy and Obamacare, and is now going to do whatever he wants because whether or not we like it no longer matters to him. Hence, EPA, trading a traitor for murderers, etc. This also makes perfect sense to me - I’ve sensed this hell bent defiant attitude in the face of big defeat.
Not sure we can survive to 2016 with our POTUS on a personal “screw you” mission.
Yes. Too bad we have weak politicians like Boehner more willing to destroy other Republicans than use the means he has to stop Obama
???
I respectfully disagree with Lord Monckton. The Constitution's Article V and the 10th Amendment also need to be taken into consideration as explained below.
First, what part of "all" in "All legislative power ..." of Section 1 of Article I doesn't Lord Monckton understand? In other words, limiting the "all" by subjectively reading "nearly all," "mostly" all, "practically all" or "almost all" as examples, into the beginning of that statute is reasonably straining the meaning of the unmodified all imo.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson favored strict interpretations of the Constitution for the following reason.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
And speaking of amending the Constitution, Jefferson had also written the following which emphasizes that the states reserved uniquely to themselves the power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.
"If the two departments [Federal and State] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided not compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
Jefferson's statement about state versus federal powers in the context of Article V can be simplied into the following rules imo.
The States are always right.
If the States are wrong, see Rule #1.
Next, Lord Monckton may not understand the significance of the Constitution's silence about an issue as it concerns the 10th Amendment. More specifically, with the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify the following. The Constitution's silence about a particular issue, coal and the environment in this case, means that “government” power to address the issue is automatically and uniquely reserved to the states where intrastate property is concerned. In fact, here is the Supreme Court's clarification of the 10th Amendment.
”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.
So Lord Monckton needs to understand that the EPA is wrongly exercising leglisative / regulatory powers that, with the exception of federal property, the states have never delegated to the federal government via the Constitution.