Congress is acting like a wimp!

“The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a ‘command-and-control’ role over the process in a way that could hurt business,” Fox News reports:

While administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won’t be pretty.

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Congress has abdicated its responsibility for so long that they’ve forgotten that it is they who should be telling regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency what they are allowed to do. Their reason for pushing things like carbon tax off on the EPA is simple enough … come election time they can tell their constituents “it wasn’t me that raised your taxes … it was those dirty regulators!”

But this move by the EPA has an added benefit; the Democrats in Congress no longer has to worry about dealing Cap and Tax and Tax and Tax; it is now Obama’s problem … he just took responsibility … though most likely without realizing it. The EPA is an agency and therefore part of the Obama administration. He now owns the “climate change taxing authority,” thereby relieving Congress of the responsibility.

But that still doesn’t fix the problem of Congress continuing to shirk their responsibility. The Obamacare bill in the Senate has … at last count … almost 2,100 pages. Were it to be put into law the Department of Health and Human Services, among others, would then have responsibility of creating the specifics rules and regulations to make it work.

I suspect those 2,100 pages would end up being the table of contents to one of the most massive sets of regulations ever created in the history of government. And then when the feces hit the rotating air movement device, our elected “officials” would point the finger and say “it wasn’t us … they did it!”

As responsible citizens of this great country, let’s resolve to hold our elected representatives responsible for their actions. No more finger-pointing … you help craft and then vote for the law … you are responsible from then on!

Global warming and the US Constitution

All of the AGW crowd are readying themselves for their convocation scheduled in December in Copenhagen, Denmark. It is their hope that the US will finally sign on to a new Kyoto Treaty to be adopted during this sacred gathering of the faithful (an early draft of that document can be downloaded here). They are especially encouraged now that The One is the Blessed Leader of the US and His followers control Congress.

Unfortunately, there is that pesky little document called the US Constitution that some of us believe is still the law of the land. Article 2 says that for a treaty to become law, it needs to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the US Senate. It will be very difficult under the current membership to convince enough Republicans to vote with the Senate majority … close, but no banana.

Sure, Senator Snowe and possibly Collins (the two Maine Senators) will see this as an opportunity to preen in front of the news’ cameras, as Snowe did following the Senate Finance Committee’s recent passage of the Obamacare bill. However, the Dems would still have to pick up a minimum of four additional GOP votes and the only ones I’d be fearful of “moving across the aisle” would be Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) and John McCain (RINO-AZ).

Graham recently announced he now supports John Kerry’s* Cap and Tax and Tax and Tax and Tax bill, so it’s not much of a stretch to extend that support to a treaty. Who ever knows what McCain will do! However, I also expect there may be a few (2-4) Dem Senators unwilling to sacrifice their political career to The One. It just depends on when/if a vote on the treaty comes to the Senate; I don’t believe there is any drop-dead date within the treaty for ratification by the US or any other country.

* – The former junior Senator from Massachusetts who, by the way, served in Vietnam.

Nevertheless, there is also another section of the Constitution that hypothetically prohibits the Senate from adopting the treaty in the first place; something called Article 6:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

While a cursory read seems to give the impression that any treaties we enter into become the supreme law of the land, it is that last bit, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” that throws the monkey wrench into things. Kyoto, Kyoto II (whatever it ends up looking like), and other similar treaties like the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child contain provisions that would supersede or override provisions of the Constitution. That’s the rub!

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Our lawmakers cannot legally enter into a treaty that has provisions that make anything in the Constitution, the Amendments or Bill of Rights subservient to that treaty. Not that the Liberals in the Senate won’t try, mind you.

James Madison, the man viewed by most experts as the author of the Constitution, along with Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere that, essentially, the US cannot enter into any treaty with provisions that would supersede anything in the Constitution. As I am by no stretch of the imagination a lawyer nor have any legal training, I will not attempt to describe to the reader what Madison’s, Jefferson’s, or John Jay’s (the three authors of The Federalist Papers) perspectives were. I’ve found several good analysis of this issue, with links to three of those here, here and here. There are many others, but in my research I never happened upon any arguments for allowing treaties to supersede provisions of the Constitution (though truthfully … I didn’t bother to look specifically for the reverse).

Obama has pushed some sort of Cap and Tax and Tax and Tax and Tax bill since he joined the US Senate … and maybe before. His recent “award” of the Nobel Peace Prize was, in my opinion, a bribe from the internationalists to keep moving the US towards socialism and a one-world government. The document that will come out of the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will do just that.

If the current crop of Cap and Tax and Tax and Tax and Tax bills making their way through both the House and Senate are ever passed and sent to The One for His blessings, it will put in place another stepping stone that will lead us to that one-world government. Don’t let them get their way!!!!

UPDATE: Publis Huldah noted an error as to the authors of the Federalist Papers. While Thomas Jefferson is generally acknowledged as the author of the Declaration of Independence, it was Alexander Hamilton and not Jefferson, that was the third author of the Federalist Papers. Thanks for the catch!

Financial Flimflam

Congress is ‘working to solve the financial crisis’ as I write. Why is it I fear the ‘solution’ may end up being more painful than the crisis?

Congress is the primary cause of the crisis in the first place. Their ongoing interference in the market, including regulatory hijinks and politically motivated tax policies, helped put in motion a climate that others used for their own benefit at the expense of the taxpaying citizens of this country. Some on Wall Street as well as others on Main Street saw a way to gain with little risk to themselves … or so many thought.

Is the bailout now under consideration being designed to avert further blows to our economy, or is it being crafted to reward irresponsibility? Unfortunately I suspect only time will tell.