Skip to comments.EPA, Texas go to war over carbon-emission rules (What can a state do if it loses in court?)
Posted on 12/27/2010 12:41:21 PM PST by SeekAndFind
And so it begins, and on the most fertile red-state territory in the nation. Texas, which got four more seats in the House through the 2010 Census reapportionment, has had its air-quality rules superceded by the EPA as part of its aggressive new action on carbon emissions. Governor Rick Perry promises a fight:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday effectively declared Texas unfit to regulate its owngreenhouse gas emissions and took over carbon dioxide permitting of any new or expanding industrial facilities starting Jan. 2.
The EPA also set up a framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in seven other states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon and Wyoming. In addition, the agency set a timetable on establishing regulated levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The action will give the EPA permitting authority over refineries, power plants and cement facilities in Texas, the agency said, but will not affect small pollution source facilities, such as restaurants and farms.
Well, perhaps not directly, but the increase in energy prices and shortages created by the EPA imposition of what will essentially be carbon taxes will impact businesses throughout the Texas economy, as well as consumers who ultimately pay the costs of the regulatory regime. Rick Perry has signaled a court fight to stop the EPA and the Obama administration:
Texas is the only state that has refused to implement the new rules. President Barack Obama is pressing ahead with the regulations after Congress failed to pass legislation capping carbon emissions. Perry, a Republican, calls the rules overreaching by the federal government that will cripple his states economy.
The EPAs misguided plan paints a huge target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers by implementing unnecessary, burdensome mandates on our states energy sector, threatening hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs and imposing increased living costs on Texas families, Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
The timing is certainly interesting. The EPA made this move two days before Christmas, when most people had stopped paying attention to political news. The EPA’s move thus got missed by most of the national media, even though it demonstrates well the Obama strategy in 2011 to win through regulation what it could not win through legislation. And by focusing on Texas, where Republicans have a chance to redistrict with practically no interference from Democrats, the move will certainly incentivize the GOP to limit as much as possible the representation of Democrats in their Congressional delegation as the Republican-controlled House attempts to stymie the EPA’s regulatory innovation.
This also will vault Rick Perry to the highest level of national politics, even as he continues to insist that he won’t run for President. With a third term as governor in hand and a perfect political battle opening in front of him, though, the opportunity may be too much to resist for a man who could possibly unite conservatives and the GOP for a big run against a stumbling Obama in 2012.
This is huge
It’s ironic that this will all come to a head as we prepare to observe the 150th anniversary of the start of the last civil war.
We need to start gutting the EPA’s budget as congress’ first order of business.
Agreed... write your congressman... although I doubt they will care enough to read your concerns.
That's easy. The governor - - if he has the guts - - can thank the court for weighing in and then do whatever is in the best interests of his state so long as he does not violate the provisions of the US Constitution, which enumerates certain, specific, limited powers to the federal government. Everything else, you see, is left to the states.
If Texas pushes this as a Constitutional challenge in court, the EPA gets their heads handed to ‘em.
Amy power not specifically granted the Fed automatically reverts to the States and the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is “EPA” or anything remotely close mentioned. They lose.....big time.
It can do at least three things if it doesnt want to knuckle under. BTW, this is what states must do if the federal government itself doesnt strike down or repeal ObamieCommieCare:
1) A state's highest court could "underrule" (as opposed to overrule) a federal court decision,
2) Along the same line, legislatively, a state could nullify an abhorrent and unconstitutional federal law, mandate, or regulation,
3) The last resort for a state that has reached the point where it has suffered as the Declaration of Independence calls it, "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same Object...[of]...absolute Depostism..." it can and should divest itself of and cede from the federal government.
With high probability, in the end, when the fight gets bloody, RINO’s always surrender...
The governor who takes them on smartly and boldly would be the front runner for president in an instant. Ignore every ruling that can't be supported by the constitution, and dare them to do something about it.
The Obama administration has never bothered to worry about the Constitution.
Considereing that the structure of our government is one of “balance of power” and “three coequal branches of government”, the bigger question is, who put the judiciary at the top of the food chain? Screw the men in black.
It would be interesting to see a State pass laws that bind US Senators and Congressmen to specific votes.
For example Texas passes a law with to require Texas Senators and Congressmen to vote no on any legislation that contains EPA or FCC budget dollars.
At least for House members, it is well established that the State sets the voting districts. At least for House members the penalty could be that by voting to give any money to the EPA or FCC, that the house district will be dissolved and reapportioned.
I side with the South, just like last time.
First Darryl Issa should hold hearing to expose the EPA's America haters. Grill that skanky Lisa Jackson Then gut the EPA like a fish you just caught.
If they are co-equal, then two of the three ought to be able to over-rule the third.
Texas can do all of this... then watch as Texas begins to lose federal funds for various ‘projects’...
Although, Texas (and Texans) could probably survive without federal funds for many projects.
EPA is a bunch of DMV clerks launching a palace revolt and appointing themselves king.
Unfortunately, that is all too true.
Who can ever forget when the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, was faced down by a stinking county probate judge and the world got to watch the excructiating, televised, month-long state murder by starvation of an innocent young woman.
EPA Issues Six Greenhouse Gas Rules
Broke here first today...mods. bumped it out of breaking and put it in “blogger personal.”