[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Senators Try to Regain Legislative Authority Over EPA Written by James Heiser The United States Constitution appears to be consigned to the role of fairytale in our post-modern society, because it seems like any discussion of how our representative government is supposed to function begins with the words, “Once upon a time...”. In keeping with that fairytale motif, let us pretend for the moment that the constitutionally enumerated powers of the legislative branch of government still mean something. Oh, I’m not talking about that restrictive little list of things enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 which are actually specifically delineated as within the purview of Congress. Ever since the Commerce Clause was blown up into something you might see floating in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, the legislative power of the federal government has long since outgrown the constraints placed upon it by the founding fathers. No, I’m asking for you to momentarily suspend your disbelief and imagine a government in which the legislative branch actually drafted the legislation — rather than what we apparently have at present, which is the executive branch writing its own law. If the legislative branch was still a functioning branch of government, a whole host of bureaucratic power grabs would have been recognized as unconstitutional, and crushed by our elected representatives. Take, for example, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s “endangerment finding” concerning carbon dioxide — a move which was widely interpreted as intended to make an ‘end run’ around the United States Senate, which apparently was not lurching headlong into “cap and trade” as fast as the Obama Administration wanted. In our fairytale, citizens and elected representatives of good will — regardless of political party — would have viewed such an action as a willful violation of the Constitution, and would have settled for nothing less that the immediate resignation of Ms. Jackson. Now back to the real world. Instead of such a defense of the rule of law, we are subjected to the following bit of absurdity from the keyboard of John Broder over at The New York Times: That’s right: In Mr. Broder’s world, it is the senator who is challenging the “authority” of the EPA to unilaterally impose sweeping legislation. One might permit Mr. Broder a bit of slack, since he is probably still mourning the failure of his hero, Barrack Obama, to ‘deliver’ at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. But the text cited above was the first sentence of his recent article. If Broder’s recollection of the Constitution is a little bit fuzzy, certainly someone on the editorial staff at The New York Times has read that musty old document at some point in the last few years. (After all, there’s even an iPhone “app” for that, fellows! You can look cool and still familiarize yourselves with the highest law of the land.) But Mr. Broder was only getting warmed up. Well, there you go. You know, pure oxygen is a pretty hazardous substance, too. And divers have to worry about nitrogen narcosis. Perhaps Ms. Jackson should use the magical powers granted to her by the Supreme Court to regulate oxygen and nitrogen, too. In fact, we should just look to the EPA to create an entirely new atmosphere for us. After all, Barrack Obama declared that his election as President would signal to future generations “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” and the Leader has pointed to Ms. Jackson as the one who is his instrument to heal our atmosphere. What’s the rule of law in comparison to Mr. Obama’s mandate for unprecedented change? The stunning thing is that Ms. Murkowski was able to find three democrats who had not been ‘borged’ by Majority Leader Harry Reid. Speaking of Sen. Reid, Mr. Broder does document that an attitude of “the ends justifies the means” still reigns in the majority leader’s office: “There is no disagreement that it would be better than E.P.A. regulation for Congress to pass bipartisan comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that creates jobs, improves our energy security and invests in making our economy and businesses more efficient and globally competitive,” the aide, Jim Manley, said. “But, thus far, very few Republicans have shown any willingness to work with us to get that done.” In short, this means that all that matters is the outcome. Oh, it would be nice if the regulation could be implemented by means of a process which wears some of the rags of constitutionality, but the key thing is getting the job done. After all, as Mr. Broder reminds us, “Worrisome changes”? That’s what we call the administration’s assault on the Constitution. Anthropogenic climate change is, at best, a theory; and it is a theory which is looking more and more flaky all the time. But the assault on the rule of law in this nation is easily demonstrated, and the implications for future generations of Americans is quite grave.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
The House should just cut off their funding.
#2. To: ratcat (#1)
They need to cut funding to a lot of things but yes that would take care of the problem.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||