Supreme Court upholds EPA’s cross-state air pollution authority

posted at 6:01 pm on April 29, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Over the past few years, the green lobby has put a lot of its collective energy into making a gigantic fuss over the Keystone XL pipeline and pushing President Obama to make climate change more of a priority — but in the grand scheme of things, the proposed pipeline is really just a symbolic battle about refusing to enable fossil-fuel development by building the requisite infrastructure (because, these eco-radicals hope and pray, we’ll start leaving more of our resources in the ground in favor of heavily subsidizing renewables and forcing behavioral changes). As the NYT rather aptly pointed out last week, the carbon emissions that Canada will unleash in developing their old sands aren’t even a drop in the bucket compared to the impact that the Obama administration’s many regulations can/will have:

Experts say that Mr. Obama’s eventual decision on the pipeline will have a marginal impact on global warming emissions, while those dull-sounding E.P.A. rules and treaty talks will determine his enviromental legacy.

Consider the numbers: In 2011, the most recent year for which comprehensive international data is available, the global economy emitted 32.6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. The United States was responsible for 5.5 billion tons of that (coming in second to China, which emitted 8.7 billion tons). Within the United States, electric power plants produced 2.8 billion tons of those greenhouse gases, while vehicle tailpipe emissions from burning gasoline produced 1.9 billion tons.

By comparison, the oil that would move through the Keystone pipeline would add 18.7 million metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere annually, the E.P.A. estimated. In other words, the carbon emissions produced by oil that would be moved in the Keystone pipeline would amount to less than 1 percent of United States greenhouse gas emissions, and an infinitesimal slice of the global total.

Within that context, “the Keystone pipeline is a rounding error,” said Kevin Book, the founder of ClearView Energy Partners, an energy analysis firm.

Which means that the Obama administration’s recent regulations on new power plants in conjunction with forthcoming regulations on existing power plants (read: squashing coal out of the picture) are the real power players in Obama’s climate-change agenda, and the Environmental Protection Agency was further enabled in carrying out that mission through the Clean Air Act with a Supreme Court decision released today. In 2012, a lower court ruled that the EPA was taking too much leeway with the “good neighbor” provision of the act in determining how much upwind emitters should be required to reduce their emissions to compensate for the pollution that drifts to downwind states (namely, via the EPA appointing itself with the unwritten authority to selectively consider several factors including what it would cost the individual state and how much the individual state has already done to cut pollution, rather than just considering how much the state is actually emitting). SCOTUS, however, decided that the EPA’s broader interpretation of the rule does indeed make practical sense, via Reuters:

By a 6-2 vote, the court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted reasonably in requiring 28 states to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which can lead to soot and smog.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the EPA rule a cost-effective way to allocate responsibility for emission reductions among so-called upwind states, and that the EPA need not consider each state’s proportionate responsibility for the emissions in question.

She also called the rule a “permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation” of the “good neighbor” provision of the federal Clean Air Act.

This provision limits cross-border emissions that make it harder for downwind states to comply with federal air quality standards, or national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

“The Good Neighbor Provision requires EPA to seek downwind attainment of NAAQS notwithstanding the uncertainties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Required to balance the possibilities of under-control and over-control, EPA must have leeway in fulfilling its statutory mandate.”

Alito recused, while Scalia and Thomas were the two dissenters, emphases mine:

Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people’s representatives in Congress. With the statute involved in the present cases, however, Congress did it right. It specified quite precisely the responsibility of an upwind State under the Good Neighbor Provision: to eliminate those amounts of pollutants that it contributes to downwind problem areas. But the Environmental Protection Agency was unsatisfied with this system. Agency personnel, perhaps correctly, thought it more efficient to require reductions not in proportion to the amounts of pollutants for which each upwind State is responsible, but on the basis of how cost-effectively each can decrease emissions.

Today, the majority approves that undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act. The Agency came forward with a textual justification for its action, relying on a farfetched meaning of the word “significantly” in the statutory text. That justification is so feeble that today’s majority does not even recite it, much less defend it. The majority reaches its result (“Look Ma, no hands!”) without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable “gap” in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis—and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap. …

The statute ad­dresses solely the environmental consequences of emis­sions, not the facility of reducing them; and it requires States to shoulder burdens in proportion to the size of their contributions, not in proportion to the ease of bearing them. EPA’s utterly fanciful “from each according to its ability” construction sacrifices democratically adopted text to bureaucratically favored policy.

Perhaps the individually-evaluated approach for which the EPA argued does make the process more workable for its ostensible emission-reducing purposes, but I’d be a little more inclined to give the agency the benefit of the doubt if it hadn’t already established such a brazen habit of expanding its own power at every possible turn.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Abolish the EPA

workingclass artist on April 29, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Again Scalia and Thomas are correct.

At least we’ll have their words as record of how our republic deteriorated in this era.

gwelf on April 29, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Soon to include gun smoke which would require further regulation, of course.

You heard it here first.

Bishop on April 29, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Big government just got bigger.

chewmeister on April 29, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Soon to include gun smoke which would require further regulation, of course.

You heard it here first.

Bishop on April 29, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Probably as they’re already working on banning lead.

chewmeister on April 29, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Abolish the EPA

workingclass artist on April 29, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Indeed.

Problem(s) solved.

BigWyo on April 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM

So much for the idea of the Supreme Court providing any kind of check on the other branches. When they seized the power to declare laws constitutional in Marbury, they also created the power of the rubber stamp.

Are there any checks and balances left at all? Or was that always a fantasy told to gullible ‘citizens’?

Another Libertarian on April 29, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Yes because carbon dioxide is a pollutant, YO!

So all you leftists, please stop breathing immediately! You’re going to destroy the ERF!

Meople on April 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM

I don’t claim to understand the specifics of this particular case, but one thing I do know: It’s going to cost me money. Anything this administration does, and that the SCOTUS decides they area ‘allowed’ to do, costs me money.

Thanks for that! I’ll look forward to higher electricity bills. Good thing prices aren’t going up (except for the little things like gas, heating oil, electricity, food, etc., etc.!)

xNavigator on April 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the EPA rule a cost-effective way to allocate responsibility for emission reductions among so-called upwind states, and that the EPA need not consider each state’s proportionate responsibility for the emissions in question.

Not only are they schooled in juris prudence, but they’re also experts in climatology, geography, environment and economic fields.

Hats off, I guess.

BobMbx on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

To say that the government is out of control, is no longer hyperbolic rhetoric, but clearly a statement of fact.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a big pile of doo-doo and carbon emissions are NOT “air pollution” in any way, shape, or form. We might as well just call skyscrapers “chairs” because people can sit on top of them.

As to the SCOTASS … they’re as dumb and ridiculous as they ever were. It’s a good thing that we no longer have a Constitution or the Rule of Law in this nation because this SCOTASS is not up to the task. Not even close. This SCOTASS’s irrelevancy is its saving grace …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I can’t feel the way I did before
Don’t turn your back on me
I won’t be ignored
Time won’t heal this damage anymore
Don’t turn your back on me
I won’t be ignored

Ignore us at your own risk EPA.

OregonPolitician on April 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Never enough power.

CW on April 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Thanks for that! I’ll look forward to higher electricity bills. Good thing prices aren’t going up (except for the little things like gas, heating oil, electricity, food, etc., etc.!)

xNavigator on April 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM

“…under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.” – Obammunism

He couldn’t coerce enough people to pass his “cap and trade” law, so he just used his phone and his pen instead.

And they wonder why we hate them.

Meople on April 29, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Not a surprise this thread comes from Erika Johnsen,who clearly works energy issues in her “real job.”

But I don’t disagree with the result (as I understand it). When I was living in Michigan, downwind from the industrial and more populated regions of Wisconsin and Illinois, the EPA kept trying to penalize my community with environmental issues out of Milwaukee and Chicago.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Looks like most of those plants set for closure are in the midwest rust belt….

Good luck to those people to stay warm in the winter and to have enough power to run their industry.
The last 1000 days of the Obama regime will be dark indeed.

redguy on April 29, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Soon to include gun smoke which would require further regulation, of course.

You heard it here first.

Bishop on April 29, 2014 at 6:06 PM

You’re not already using air-powered guns? Denier! Next up is regulation of vape’d smoke.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the EPA rule a cost-effective way to allocate responsibility for emission reductions among so-called upwind states, and that the EPA need not consider each state’s proportionate responsibility for the emissions in question.

When did it become the job of SCOTUS members to rule in favor of their person beliefs on issues outside of their skill set?

Mimzey on April 29, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Nix the EPA.

Roberts is still an idiot or being blackmailed.

Schadenfreude on April 29, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Gotta keep the peons in their place….

Big Brother is watching you. All hail Big Brother.

viking01 on April 29, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Roberts is still an idiot or being blackmailed.

Schadenfreude on April 29, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Or both.

The way Bendict Roberts smirks and preens I figure he’s just a whore with megalomania.

viking01 on April 29, 2014 at 6:28 PM

The left cant wait to turn the lights off.

TX-96 on April 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM

The Federal Government should NEVER be in the position of deciding if the Federal Government has X additional power.

That should go to the States for RATIFICATION in a Constitutional Amendment.

Funny, I just remember something I learned in Civics class waaaay back in the late 1980′s… What I just described is HOW THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY _IS_ supposed to acquire additional power!

ConstantineXI on April 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM

The left cant wait to turn the lights off.

TX-96 on April 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM

For the Hoi Polloi anyway, the Left will have air conditioning in the summer, bright lights at night, and heat in the winter. And Lobster and Waygu on the table.

ConstantineXI on April 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM

When did it become the job of SCOTUS members to rule in favor of their person beliefs on issues outside of their skill set?

Mimzey on April 29, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Late 2008.

the_nile on April 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM

This is like Dred Scott or the Obamacare decision: I don’t care WHAT the court’s “opinion” is, this is still Unconstitutional.

ConstantineXI on April 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM

To say that the government is out of control, is no longer hyperbolic rhetoric, but clearly a statement of fact.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

appreciate your linking to my site but not sure why its related to this, can you clarify?
thanks.

dmacleo on April 29, 2014 at 6:37 PM

When the Supremes decided convenience murder was a privacy matter that’s a fairly good indicator of how much our robed rulers had begun to disdain us.

viking01 on April 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM

As much as I’d like to see the EPA squashed like the leech it is, this regulation is not the hill to die on.

Even the Scalia/Thomas dissent is full of weasel-words.

JEM on April 29, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Goodbye coal, goodbye oil, goodbye gas, goodbye nuclear, goodbye industry, goodbye jobs, goodbye America. Hello bunny rabbits and unicorns. Oh, and riots, starvation, mass murder and the Gulag.

vnvet on April 29, 2014 at 6:44 PM

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

appreciate your linking to my site but not sure why its related to this, can you clarify?
thanks.

dmacleo on April 29, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Hmmm, apparently that links goes to a completely different site depending on who is clicking on it.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:44 PM

To say that the government is out of control, is no longer hyperbolic rhetoric, but clearly a statement of fact.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

viewing page source here shows it as link to the syg video on my conservativevoices site, thought maybe you had been meaning to link to nra new ad there.

dmacleo on April 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM

The majority reaches its result (“Look Ma, no hands!”) without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable “gap” in the statute, which it proceeds to fill

Doesn’t that pretty much sum up judicial activism? Who needs actual text in the law? If the Constitution — or any law, obviously — doesn’t actually say anything on a subject, they just fill it in with their own judgement.

And so we have rulings that the Constitution protects abortion, even though it says absolutely nothing, that the Constitution prevents any state or local government from regulating or restricting any type of contraceptives, or any type of sexual perversion — even though the Constitution makes absolutely no attempt to regulate such things at a federal level, and that ‘Equal Protection’ means marriage is itself discriminatory unless it is redefined to include same-sex ‘couplings.’

People can take different sides on the issues, but there should really be no doubt that the Constitution says nothing about them. And yet judges have in each of these cases and many more overruled state governments and their constitutions based on nothing more than opinion without any text in the Constitution to rely on.

Increasingly, SCOTUS itself is just rule by liberal elite opinion without even the courtesy of a democratic election first.

SCOTUS is now a rule of men, not of law.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 29, 2014 at 6:52 PM

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:13 PM

viewing page source here shows it as link to the syg video on my conservativevoices site, thought maybe you had been meaning to link to nra new ad there.

dmacleo on April 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Not when I click on it. It goes somewhere else.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:59 PM

I’d be a little more inclined to give the agency the benefit of the doubt if it hadn’t already established such a brazen habit of expanding its own power at every possible turn.

Congress has the power to rein it in, but they prefer lazy lawmaking to shift the political consequences to unelected bureaucrats they can point to as the bad guy.

ButterflyDragon on April 29, 2014 at 7:01 PM

So, if I pull over to the side of the road to let my kid go pee, say just outside Erie, PA………..

WryTrvllr on April 29, 2014 at 7:02 PM

save the world, trip a marathoner!

WryTrvllr on April 29, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Why did Alito recuse?

Jaibones on April 29, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Abolish the EPA

workingclass artist on April 29, 2014 at 6:03 PM

.
Dittos.

listens2glenn on April 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Are there any checks and balances left at all? Or was that always a fantasy told to gullible ‘citizens’?

Another Libertarian on April 29, 2014 at 6:11 PM

.
The whole American form of government, as crafted by the Founding Fathers, is a TOTAL “fantasy”, to a population who reject the recognition of God.

listens2glenn on April 29, 2014 at 7:49 PM

the climate hysterics seem to have gotten even weirder. No doubt in part because of the run up to the AR5…but I’ve always thought that they are working behind the scenes prepping for Barry’s final Two Years.

It won’t be pretty…but here’s a sample from Brookings

A traditional emissions standard would impose different incremental abatement costs in different states, potentially distorting investment across state lines. In contrast, an EPA-specified tax option available to all states would allow them to harmonize their pollution policies without having to link them directly, for example through a regional allowance market.

States could use the revenue however they wish. For instance, they could lower inefficient taxes, potentially providing pro-growth state tax reform along with environmental benefits.

In its power plant rule, EPA can signal that the same tax will also work for future carbon rules for industrial facilities. This would allow states to adopt only one tax law and help industries invest wisely in pollution reduction before EPA imposes new regulations.

A price-based standard is diplomatically far superior to an emissions rate standard (i.e. “X tons of CO2 per kilowatt hour generated”) because it clarifies the economic ambition of US climate policy and starts a useful international carbon pricing dialogue.

A carbon price in the rule would signal to Congress what the Administration would accept as a federal carbon tax alternative to Clean Air Act rules.

here is a major different between the RINO party…and the I want to be left alone crowd…..but per Trotsky: You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2014/04/01/an-epa-sanctioned-state-based-carbon-tax-could-reduce-emissions-and-improve-state-finances/

r keller on April 29, 2014 at 7:51 PM

SCOTUS is dead. Even in the dissent, the argument is made the fed has jurisdiction. Pathetic.

TQM38a on April 29, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Not when I click on it. It goes somewhere else.

oscarwilde on April 29, 2014 at 6:59 PM

can you post the link again w/o embedding in text so I can see what you were linking to?
pcs in other locations also go to my site from that comment.

so I have no idea what you were trying to link to and would like to see it.

dmacleo on April 29, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Hmm. In the dissenting votes, I see Thomas and Scalia with Alito recusing. Now, I’m no expert, but I believe that means that Chief Justice Roberts must have sided with the EPA, just as he came down on the side of Obamacare.

But that’s okay. Keep flogging the notion that we must always vote for the GOP candidate, moderate or not, so that we can have control of the Supreme Court nominees. It’s worked so well.

Shump on April 29, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Reminder: When R’s had the Senate, they gave us Roberts….Why do we want them back?

nobar on April 29, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Welcome to amerika. Let it burn.

earlgrey on April 29, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Two sobering document-able facts about co2 emissions.
1. ALL human activities, including domestic animals are responsible for less than 4% of annual global co2 emissions. More than 96% of emissions occur naturally.
2. CO2 makes up only four one hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere. (400 parts per million) If we were to cease using fossil fuels, the best possible outcome would reduce the level of co2 by sixteen parts per million or .0016% of the atmosphere, and CO2 emissions would still be more than 96% of current levels. I looked it us and I was astounded. The fact that humans produce such a small percentage of the total is a well hidden fact, but it’s still a fact. The reality of just how small a change we’ll see even if we destroy industrial economies by outlawing fossil fuels is mind boggling.

hdc77494 on April 29, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Great!!

Now we’ll have an illegitimate rogue department of a spendthrift, lawless malAdministration forcing the cost of everything higher…for absolutely no benefit to the citizenry.

CO2 is NOT a “pollutant”: it is an essential gas which is required for life to exist on this planet.

The actions of the EPA are largely based on a huge lie.

landlines on April 30, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Elections matter.

Most of the bad SCOTUS appointments by Republican Presidents in recent years were named to get through Democratic opposition in the Senate. Stevens, Souter, O’Connor, Miers (Powell and Kennedy couldn’t really be foreseen as moderate Justices). With a Republican Senate, it could have been possible to demand more conservative appointments.

And of course we’ve seen the quality of the Democratic appointees.

If you stay home because the Republican nominees aren’t quite conservative enough for you, you are enabling more Kagans and Ginsbergs and Sotomayors.

Adjoran on April 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM

…Bullshit!

KOOLAID2 on April 30, 2014 at 1:42 AM

The wind blows in every direction so it’s always going to have a down wind. The epa needs to go along with all the other eco nuts. Make them all live in International Falls, MN, without the benefit of a power plant.

Kissmygrits on April 30, 2014 at 9:46 AM

MF liberal sob’s….. Mark Levin’s “Men in Black” is a MUST read!!!!

ultracon on April 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM

EPA?
OK, I’ll be the first: I blame Richard Milhouse NIXON.
AND the Gimmedat’s that have promoted the freedom and commerce CRUSHING bureacracy that it has become over the past 4 decades.

Missilengr on April 30, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Something to ponder:
King Putt and his True Believers in the EPA have around 1000 DAYS to impose their beliefs on the American System.
Thanks SCOTUS.

In comparision it took about 1000 days of active land combat and strategic bombing to totally destroy most of Europe in the 1940′s.
Comforting thought, no?

Missilengr on April 30, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Elections matter.

Most of the bad SCOTUS appointments by Republican Presidents in recent years were named to get through Democratic opposition in the Senate. Stevens, Souter, O’Connor, Miers (Powell and Kennedy couldn’t really be foreseen as moderate Justices). With a Republican Senate, it could have been possible to demand more conservative appointments.

And of course we’ve seen the quality of the Democratic appointees.

If you stay home because the Republican nominees aren’t quite conservative enough for you, you are enabling more Kagans and Ginsbergs and Sotomayors.

Adjoran on April 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM

Oh, please. George W. Bush was a moderate through and through. Yes, he ultimately nominated Alito, but that was after enormous political pressure that forced him to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers. His preference all along was to nominate moderates to the court.

John Roberts has managed to cement both Obamacare and the overreach of the EPA. And he was nominated by Bush when he did, in fact, have a Republican Senate to confirm his nominees. So why exactly didn’t we get a rock solid conservative justice who would have laughed Obamacare out of the courtroom?

If you seriously think that holding our noses and voting for moderate Republicans is going to get us conservative justices, you are simply ignoring history.

Shump on April 30, 2014 at 1:20 PM

EPA?
OK, I’ll be the first: I blame Richard Milhouse NIXON.
AND the Gimmedat’s that have promoted the freedom and commerce CRUSHING bureacracy that it has become over the past 4 decades.

Missilengr on April 30, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Most of the stupid amerikans on this blog are too dumb to know that Nixon created the EPA.

earlgrey on April 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Roberts is looking more and more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Very bad for the USA and the world.

MN J on April 30, 2014 at 1:55 PM

“Fundamental Transformation”… is a code word for preparing America for the New World Order.

3 things have to happen to change our form of government so that we could be  
Controlled by the New World Order.

 1) Do away with our Constitution. 

2) Do away with our Bill of Rights. 

3) Confiscate ALL of our guns.

For all of that to happen they must CREATE a way to put us under Martial Law.

Martial Law automatically suspends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At that point FEMA will take over ALL Law enforcement in the United States. Not even your Governor can stop them or tell them what to do. They will go door to door and confiscate ALL guns. There will be NO search warrant. If you resist they will use whatever force necessary to get your guns. If you are belligerent or hostile and the government agent’s feel their life is threatened, they will kill you… That is their rules of engagement.

In my opinion their planned method of creating a crisis severe enough to declare a national emergency and to enact ALL Executive Order’s and move us into Martial Law is to crash the US Dollar and make it so we can no longer print funny money through the Federal Reserve. That will create MASSIVE civil unrest.

To finish this project to CREATE a financial crisis… They are right on track. Bush spent 5T more than the treasury took in, in just 8 years. Obama… 8T in just 6 years and got the debt limit increase approved with NO fight from Congress.

When we can’t borrow any more money from China or our dollar crashes our economy will evaporate and there will be massive civil unrest. That event allow’s Obama to enact all executive orders. He can declare a National Emergency, put us under martial law, suspend the Constitution and the bill of rights and FEMA will start the process of confiscating all of our guns like they did during Katrina. Katrina was their dry run and they got all the people’s guns without a single shot being fired.

The UN/NWO wants this to happen before they take over because they know we are the most armed society in the world. Under martial law they operate under military law, not civil law. They must follow the International Rules of War. Thats why Congress and the President declared that America was part of the “battleground” of the War on Terror in the NDAA. That makes internment and resettlement camps legal. That’s why a month ago Justice Scalia said “I would not be surprised to see internment camps in America again”.

All of this is spelled out pretty clearly if you read the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act and then review all of the active Executive Order’s.
If you do your reading you will realize the way our laws have been written that we are 1 crisis away from a Dictatorship.

Our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution, our liberty and our freedom is in great jeopardy!

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. “Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

The ONLY way this will be stopped is IF… Our Military does their sworn DUTY to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! 

They don’t need approval from the Federal Government or anyone else to do their DUTY. They took NO oath to the President or to the Federal Government!

wartface on April 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM