26 states ask Supreme Court to halt Obama’s carbon emissions plan

posted at 10:41 am on January 27, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

This should be interesting. One state after another have been pushing back on the new EPA carbon emission guidelines, with many of them refusing to file a plan for compliance until the courts have weighed in. Now some of the biggest energy producing states are trying to bring the situation to a head well in advance of the normal challenge and appeal process. Led by West Virginia and Texas, 26 states have filed a request directly with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to step in and put the regulations on hold while the situation gets sorted out. (Yahoo News)

A group of U.S. states led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put a hold on President Barack Obama’s plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to combat climate change.

The 26 states filed a stay application with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts after an appeals court in Washington declined last week to block Obama’s Clean Power Plan while litigation over its lawfulness goes ahead.

“If this court does not enter a stay, the plan will continue to unlawfully impose massive and irreparable harms upon the sovereign states, as well as irreversible changes in the energy markets,” lawyers for the states said in the latest filing.

Asking for an injunction is nothing unusual, but the direct path to the top makes this one far more high profile. Roberts has a number of options at this point and it’s tough to predict which way he’ll go. The request essentially skips over the legislative branch and drags the top of the judicial branch into one of the assumed powers of the executive. As a matter of courtesy, Roberts could ask the White House to weigh in with their own response before taking up the question. If he passes on that course of action, he could choose to either approve or deny the injunction on his own or summon the rest of the Supreme Court Justices in to debate it. There also doesn’t seem to be any fixed deadline for action, so this mess could drag on for quite a while longer.

For a bit of recent history, this move came only one week after the DC Circuit Court refused a similar request. The American Energy Alliance weighed in on the subject with a demand for a reasonable ruling.

As most following the controversial carbon rule know, last Thursday the DC Circuit denied a request from 27 states and dozens of private parties to stay, or freeze, the rule until the court has a chance to rule on its legal merits. The decision was not altogether that surprising, given the makeup of the DC Circuit and the seemingly boundless deference given to federal agencies to regulate the environment. Nevertheless, the carbon rule is a model case for a stay to be issued, and the case law cited by the DC Circuit to support their decision (Winter v. NRDC) has no applicability to the situation in this case.

Beyond the case for a stay, states challenging the carbon rule should remain steadfast. The stay decision did not consider the merits of the case against EPA, which are strong as ever. In addition, this decision does not change the fact that the best way to protect the American people from higher electricity prices is for states to make no binding commitments to implement the carbon rule before full legal resolution.

They’re citing the Winter v. NRDC case as precedent and it may not sound like a direct fit, but the underlying argument does seem to parallel the situation with the carbon emissions rules. In Winter there was a request made to stop the United States Navy from conducting certain training exercises because environmental groups claimed that they would endanger various types of marine life. The Ninth Circuit Court granted the injunction ordering the Navy to stand down, but the Supreme Court overruled them. Their argument at that time was that the plaintiffs needed to be able to show clear, imminent and irreparable harm and that such harm had to outweigh the interests of the public. A well trained Navy was deemed to be in the greater public interest.

In this case the public interest is the harm to the public through rapidly increasing energy prices and the threat to the stability of the power grid if suppliers are forced to go offline. (We’re already seeing that in Minnesota.) Hopefully John Roberts will take these arguments under consideration as he prepares to rule on this.

Coal Power Plant


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Save us Benedict Roberts, you’re our only hope! /s

geojed on January 27, 2016 at 10:46 AM

States?

kcewa on January 27, 2016 at 10:46 AM

“But…the Constitution is for the peasants!,” chief JustUs Quisling Roberts replied.

“It’s a tax,” the vain robed smirking lunatic continued…

viking01 on January 27, 2016 at 10:52 AM

* sigh *

Magicjava on January 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM

Look, 26 states is a majority. They really need to get up to 33 for a 2/3rds majority, but in any case, if these are the United States, emphasis on States, then this should get attention.

But if this is a King/slave situation, as the left prefers, then who cares if the barons don’t like what the King is telling them to do?

Vanceone on January 27, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Thanks Bush.

Magicjava on January 27, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Hence, TRUMP…..

Because if we had a Republican Majority in Congress we could limit or halt this EPA program via amendment of the law or via the Budget Process….OH WAIT, WE DO HAVE A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, but it doesn’t actually DO anything, but look for issues to campaign on NEXT cycle, & avoid controversy THIS electoral cycle….

Because “Strategery!”

JFKY on January 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Because if we had a Republican Majority in Congress we could limit or halt this EPA program via amendment of the law or via the Budget Process….OH WAIT, WE DO HAVE A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, but it doesn’t actually DO anything, but look for issues to campaign on NEXT cycle, & avoid controversy THIS electoral cycle….

Because “Strategery!”

JFKY on January 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Best summation I’ve seen of our betters in the DC GOP Cartel.

Bitter Clinger on January 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM

Roberts is worried that Obama still has the negatives he’s been holding over his head!!

Deano1952 on January 27, 2016 at 11:09 AM

A little bit of hope.

22044 on January 27, 2016 at 11:11 AM

You would think that Obama would be worried that nearly half of the 57 states have signed onto this!

Deano1952 on January 27, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Roberts is worried that Obama still has the negatives he’s been holding over his head!!

Deano1952 on January 27, 2016 at 11:09 AM

Apparently the goat talked… on tape.

viking01 on January 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM

But the unanswered question is how can they bypass the usual appeal process? There is no reference mechanism in the US Constitution (that is an amendment I suggested some time ago here on an Article 5 discussion) so how can they jump right to the Supreme Court?

This is a sincere question and I am hoping someone can answer it.

Blaise on January 27, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Roberts: “Its a tax, so……”

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 11:39 AM

This is a sincere question and I am hoping someone can answer it.

Blaise on January 27, 2016 at 11:38 AM

This is how a post-Constitutional republic behaves. Whims become rules, rules become law.

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 11:41 AM

Revolution!

ultracon on January 27, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Judge Roberts: It’s a tax! Or a typo. Or something …

PackerBronco on January 27, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Buncha spoiled brats, like all conservatives are.

Have no idea what actual Tyranny is.

everdiso on January 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM

HumpBot Salvation on January 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Buncha spoiled brats, like all conservatives are.

Have no idea what actual Tyranny is.

everdiso on January 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM

So basically you’re saying you really don’t understand anything at all. Word of advice, remove head from sphincter THEN post comments….

Hank_Scorpio on January 27, 2016 at 12:34 PM

So who does the EPA answer to?

Hank_Scorpio on January 27, 2016 at 12:34 PM

“If this court does not enter a stay, the plan will continue to unlawfully impose massive and irreparable harms upon the sovereign states, as well as irreversible changes in the energy markets,” lawyers for the states said in the latest filing.

“Sovereign states”. What an old and busted anachronism that concept is. The Constitution was shat on reference that concept in 1865. Feds: Just shut up and do what your’e told. You WILL be made to care.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM

Look, 26 states is a majority. They really need to get up to 33 for a 2/3rds majority, but in any case, if these are the United States, emphasis on States, then this should get attention.

Vanceone on January 27, 2016 at 10:56 AM

This view was settled by the civil war. The states are components of the nation, not nations unto themselves.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM

For many coal producers, it may be too little, too late — even if the injunction is granted.

The coal companies are on their heels, if not already down for the count.

Too many of the miners are already crushed under the heel of purposefully destructive regulations from Oboozle’s EPA.

In the first 25 days of 2016, 1,892 coal miners had been laid off in West Virginia.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 12:46 PM

This view was settled by the civil war. The states are components of the nation, not nations unto themselves.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM

The Civil War did not give the executive branch of the U.S. unfettered authority to make up regulations from whole cloth. The weak-ass Congress sat by while that particular power, among others, was usurped.

The last time I checked, the War Between the States did not undo the Constitution, though it stretched it a tad.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM

There is an entire appeals process that is being stepped over or ignored completely. What of the legislative solutions, these are being ignored also. I’m not on Obama’s side nor am I in favor of the EPA edicts but we are a nation of laws and due process should not and cannot be ignored. I’m beginning to wonder where we’re headed as a nation. We are talking about the leaders of 26 states after all, am I wrong ?

Tonynoboloney on January 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM

“Sovereign states”. What an old and busted anachronism that concept is.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM

Pretty much, yeah.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:02 PM

This view was settled by the civil war. The states are components of the nation, not nations unto themselves.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM

States have rights. 10th Amendment style.

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM

“Sovereign states”. What an old and busted anachronism that concept is.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM

Pretty much, yeah.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:02 PM

So, our representative democratic Republic isn’t up to your standards?

Typical.

You never fail to live down to expectation, Tlaloc.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM

The Civil War did not give the executive branch of the U.S. unfettered authority to make up regulations from whole cloth. The weak-ass Congress sat by while that particular power, among others, was usurped.

The last time I checked, the War Between the States did not undo the Constitution, though it stretched it a tad.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM

No the “war of southern bucktoothed idiocy” (since we’re making up new names for the Civil War) didn’t give that power to the president, the constitution did. As the executive he has the power to enforce Reorganization Plan #3 that created the EPA’s mission.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM

States have rights. 10th Amendment style.

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM

Of course they do, but saying ‘they have rights’ means you are explicitly acknowledging that states are below the federal government which grants them those rights.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM

So, our representative democratic Republic isn’t up to your standards?

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM

No, just your anachronistic theories of how it is ‘supposed’ to work.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:10 PM

Same exact states sued to stop Obamacare, where’d that get them? Yeah, don’t hold your breath.

And Tlaloc, the Civil War had NOTHING to do with what you claim it did – the states in the lawsuit are NOT threatening succession – just exercising their VERY CLEARLY DELINEATED rights under the Constitution. But – that being said – your very statement exposes what many of us have suspected all along – you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

PJ Emeritus on January 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM

“…the seemingly boundless deference given to federal agencies to regulate the environment.”

No, Federal agencies do not (and cannot) regulate the environment. These agencies regulate people, using environmental concerns (many times false or overstated) as an excuse.

iowaan on January 27, 2016 at 1:13 PM

Of course they do, but saying ‘they have rights’ means you are explicitly acknowledging that states are below the federal government which grants them those rights.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:09

The federal government does not have the power to grant rights. All ‘rights’ already exist. The Constitution does, however, limit the federal government in what it can control, while at the same time giving the states unlimited legislative authority (within the bounds of Constitution).

Since the power of the fed to control states does not exist, how has the fed grown to such a large, controlling entity, basically ramrodding over state rights? Easy…by placing “options” in federal funding bills to coerce states to comply.

“Hey…want some federal dollars to maintain your roads? You’ll first have to establish state laws that comply with the rules established by the federal DOT”.

“Hey…want some federal dollars to spend on your schools? You have to teach these things, and keep up with any changes we make…”

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Of course they do, but saying ‘they have rights’ means you are explicitly acknowledging that states are below the federal government which grants them those rights.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM

I love the way you show your idiocy. The federal government grants the states nothing because it has no such power to do so.

The states form the union … not the other way around. The only way the states agreed to form the union was if the power of the federal government was limited. It was, as spelled out in the US Constitution and 10th Amendment. ALL other powers belong to the states and the people.

The federal government was designed to handle the affairs of a nation. Not to dictate policy to the states, or force their citizens to embrace political agendas.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:26 PM

This view was settled by the civil war. The states are components of the nation, not nations unto themselves.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM

The Civil War only established that states cannot secede. It did not establish that the Executive branch can ignore the Congress, Constitution and the States and do whatever it wants. These carbon rules are strictly a creation of the executive branch with no buy in from any of the other branches of government or levels of government. –BTW you Democrats were the ones backing slavery, secession and states rights back in the Civil War.

KW64 on January 27, 2016 at 1:29 PM

Of course they do, but saying ‘they have rights’ means you are explicitly acknowledging that states are below the federal government which grants them those rights.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM

I know you Progressive Lefties seem to think the states are either vestigial organs or automaton slaves of the executive branch when Dems are President but that is not how the founding fathers drew things up. The Federal government has only those powers given to it by the constitution and there is not much there about carbon emissions from power plants.

KW64 on January 27, 2016 at 1:33 PM

The federal government does not have the power to grant rights. All ‘rights’ already exist.

BobMbx on January 27, 2016 at 1:19 PM

The rights exist derive from the constitution and only exist to the extent that the constitution is the document that controls the government you live under. Go to China and those rights you assume spring from the ether will magically disappear.

The federal government not only has the power to grant rights it has the power to change the rights granted. Get a constitutional amendment passed and the first amendment can be a thing of the past. Getting such an amendment passed would of course be (and should be) very hard.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM

I know you Progressive Lefties seem to think the states are either vestigial organs or automaton slaves of the executive branch when Dems are President but that is not how the founding fathers drew things up. The Federal government has only those powers given to it by the constitution and there is not much there about carbon emissions from power plants.

KW64 on January 27, 2016 at 1:33 PM

Tlaloc likes to speak authoritatively but comes across as someone who just recently learned to spell “constitution” … so now he thinks he’s an expert on the constitution.

Let him read some communist propganda and voila! he’s a know it all.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM

I love the way you show your idiocy. The federal government grants the states nothing because it has no such power to do so.</blockquote

Bull, see above.

The states form the union … not the other way around. The only way the states agreed to form the union was if the power of the federal government was limited.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:26 PM

True but then the federal government’s power grew and the state’s power shrank and the union became much more than the sum of the parts. Like individual polyps forming a coral reef.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:39 PM

The rights exist derive from the constitution and only exist to the extent that the constitution is the document that controls the government you live under.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM

Hahahahahahaha

Thanks for proving my point.

Mr. know-it-all again shows he knows nothing.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:40 PM

The Civil War only established that states cannot secede.

KW64 on January 27, 2016 at 1:29 PM

It also established that the feds could force states to abandon slavery, something not possible if the states were actually sovereign.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:40 PM

I know you Progressive Lefties seem to think the states are either vestigial organs or automaton slaves of the executive branch when Dems are President but that is not how the founding fathers drew things up.

KW64 on January 27, 2016 at 1:33 PM

True, but also irrelevant. This isn’t the late 1700s. Things have changed since the founding fathers had their say. Their views don’t matter in the slightest.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM

Hahahahahahaha

Thanks for proving my point.

Mr. know-it-all again shows he knows nothing.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:40 PM

So you assert that your rights exist no matter what country you are in?

Good luck with that.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM

Trump will reign in the EPA and put an end to the AGW scam. He says so in his book.

“I do agree that so-called global climate change is causing us some problems: It’s causing us to waste billions of dollars…”

– Donald Trump, Crippled America, p62.

The most popular energy source of green energy is solar panels. They work, but they don’t make economic sense. (…)what kind of investment do you make that tales 20 years before you break even?

– Donald Trump, Crippled America, p65.

earlgrey on January 27, 2016 at 1:47 PM

True, but also irrelevant. This isn’t the late 1700s. Things have changed since the founding fathers had their say. Their views don’t matter in the slightest.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM

You have no idea what their views even are simpleton. Their ideas are timeless.

On the other hand, the communist manifesto was written over a hundred and fifty years ago. Therefore it is irrelevant and all Marxist ideas should be cast aside because the views of Marx doesn’t matter in the slightest.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:47 PM

So you assert that your rights exist no matter what country you are in?

Good luck with that.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM

You’re an idiot. If had any idea of the foundation of the United States and it’s governing ideals you wouldn’t have said that.

But like I said before. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about, which is typical for a communist/socialist/progressive or whatever you call yourself.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM

You have no idea what their views even are simpleton. Their ideas are timeless.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:47 PM

Then it’s a shame they were mortal and are no longer around. They still are irrelevant today.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:51 PM

No the “war of southern bucktoothed idiocy” (since we’re making up new names for the Civil War) didn’t give that power to the president, the constitution did. As the executive he has the power to enforce Reorganization Plan #3 that created the EPA’s mission.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM

1) Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. Why do you hate Southern people?

2) “We” aren’t making up anything; the term I used has been around far longer than you. In your arrogance, you expose your ignorance.

3) The legislature’s laziness is to blame for ceding unbounded regulatory authority to the executive and should be remedied.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 1:52 PM

You’re an idiot. If had any idea of the foundation of the United States and it’s governing ideals you wouldn’t have said that.

But like I said before. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about, which is typical for a communist/socialist/progressive or whatever you call yourself.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM

I can’t help but notice you dodged the question. Frankly that was your best play as there’s no answer you could give that wouldn’t have completely undercut your position, so congrats.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:52 PM

1) Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. Why do you hate Southern people?

2) “We” aren’t making up anything; the term I used has been around far longer than you. In your arrogance, you expose your ignorance.

3) The legislature’s laziness is to blame for ceding unbounded regulatory authority to the executive and should be remedied.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 1:52 PM

1) you made a silly name for the Civil War so I thought we were playing a game.

2) Well if we’re going to stop being cute, your term is a euphemism used by bigots who maintain their love for white supremacy. I guess you didn’t mean to expose that, huh?

3)but that’s their choice to make. If you don’t like it elect different legislators, but the executive is still perfectly within their rights to exercise powers the legislature has given them.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:56 PM

I can’t help but notice you dodged the question. Frankly that was your best play as there’s no answer you could give that wouldn’t have completely undercut your position, so congrats.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:52 PM

No, I didn’t. It’s your own ignorance that leads you to think I did.

It’s obvious you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence. Read it.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:59 PM

The federal government not only has the power to grant rights it has the power to change the rights granted. Get a constitutional amendment passed and the first amendment can be a thing of the past. Getting such an amendment passed would of course be (and should be) very hard.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM

This explains much.

We the people grant the right to be governed.

The federal government may not change rights granted, only a Constitutional Amendment can do so. A Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, you guessed it, 3/4s of THE STATES.

Getting schooled by a bucktoothed Southerner. Ouch.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM

No, I didn’t. It’s your own ignorance that leads you to think I did.

It’s obvious you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence. Read it.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 1:59 PM

Yes, you did, but if not then answer now- do you still have your first amendment rights when you are in China?

Yes, I’ve read the DoI, nice flowery language, no legal meaning, and sloppy logic.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Tlaloc is being especially stupid today.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:02 PM

OT

Rohani thanked the Italian fools for covering up their ‘nasty’ statues. I hope he’ll literally have their heads cut off some day.

Schadenfreude on January 27, 2016 at 2:03 PM

1) you made a silly name for the Civil War so I thought we were playing a game.

I made up nothing. The War Between the States is a term that has been used for well over a century.

2) Well if we’re going to stop being cute, your term is a euphemism used by bigots who maintain their love for white supremacy. I guess you didn’t mean to expose that, huh?

Of what do you speak? The term that I “made up”? (Also, your staggering misunderstanding of history is apparent.)

3)but that’s their choice to make. If you don’t like it elect different legislators, but the executive is still perfectly within their rights to exercise powers the legislature has given them.

It will be up to the courts to decide if those powers granted are being abused.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:56 PM

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:07 PM

This explains much.

We the people grant the right to be governed.

The federal government may not change rights granted, only a Constitutional Amendment can do so. A Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, you guessed it, 3/4s of THE STATES.

Getting schooled by a bucktoothed Southerner. Ouch.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM

That’s a nice fairy tale, but that’s all it is. We don’t grant the government anything we just either agree to be part of the society or don’t. Our agreement is based on whether we consider the social compact offered to be worthwhile.

Yes, an amendment requires ratification by a supermajority of states, in a process not dissimilar to how legislators and the president are elected by individual persons, and yet the legislature and president are still above individual people in the chain of command. Similarly the feds are above the states. The requirement for ratification is a safety measure to make it difficult for the state to turn tyrannical.

Your school appears to be unaccredited, unsurprisingly.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:07 PM

I made up nothing. The War Between the States is a term that has been used for well over a century.

Yes, by bigots. Congrats on outing yourself.

It will be up to the courts to decide if those powers granted are being abused.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Sure. I would guess that they decide against you as Roberts is mainly a unitary executive type. I certainly might be wrong but I suspect at least the 4 liberal judges + Roberts. Kennedy and Alito are question marks I think.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:10 PM

Yes, you did, but if not then answer now- do you still have your first amendment rights when you are in China?

Yes, I’ve read the DoI, nice flowery language, no legal meaning, and sloppy logic.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Do you understand what the Bill of Rights is?

It’s not a list of rights. It’s a list of things the government can’t do.

The implication is natural rights, like the right to defend oneself, and to speak freely, and to worship freely are inalienable rights.

So to answer your question, would I have those rights in China? Yes. Would the government respect those rights? No.

The entire purpose of the United States was a land where people were free to exercise their inalienable rights.

Also, stop lying. You’ve read the DoI.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:11 PM

Tlaloc is being especially stupid today.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:02 PM

Not especially.

Typically.

:>)

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:12 PM

I made up nothing. The War Between the States is a term that has been used for well over a century.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Tlaloc is a foreigner who has no concept of liberty, or the history of the US, or why and what America is. Everyone but Tlaloc has referred to the Civil War as the War between the States.

His little head is filled with commie propaganda.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:14 PM

Yes, by bigots. Congrats on outing yourself.

Using a historical term hardly brands one a bigot, you simpering anti-southern bigoted twit.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:15 PM

His little head is filled with commie propaganda.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:14 PM

Propriety prohibits me from telling you what I think is running out Tlaloc’s ears.

(Hint: it rhymes with shit.)

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:18 PM

Do you understand what the Bill of Rights is?

It’s not a list of rights. It’s a list of things the government can’t do.

The implication is natural rights, like the right to defend oneself, and to speak freely, and to worship freely are inalienable rights.

I believe that is the implication, but that implication is not only wrong it’s laughably wrong. A right could only be ‘inalienable’ if it cannot be violated. Any other way of defining that term makes it meaningless. You’ll find there’s actually a huge number of places in the world where your supposedly inalienable rights would be violated routinely. That means they are not inalienable at all. they derive from the power of the US Government only and extend only so far as our sovereignty. Step foot in another country and your first amendment rights (for example) disappear completely.

So to answer your question, would I have those rights in China? Yes. Would the government respect those rights? No.

The entire purpose of the United States was a land where people were free to exercise their inalienable rights.

Your answer is nonsense- if the government doesn’t respect the right you don’t have it because it can and will use force to abrogate your supposed right. It makes no sense to say you have the right to free speech if in fact you will be imprisoned and tortured for exercising that ‘right.’ Clearly you do NOT have that right in China.

Also, stop lying. You’ve read the DoI.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:11 PM

I said I had read it. The issue is that the DoI is wrong in several respects. But given what it was those factual errors don’t really matter. It’s only when you try to use it as a legal document that they matter.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:18 PM

Tlaloc is a foreigner

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:14 PM

I was born (and live) in the US, darwin. Why do you guys make this stuff up?

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:18 PM

If you read the DoI then you don’t understand it.

Come back when you know what the hell you’re talking about.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:23 PM

I was born (and live) in the US, darwin. Why do you guys make this stuff up?

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM

You have zero knowlegde of the US and US history. That’s why.

Anyone who has never heard of the War between the States isn’t from the US.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM

Read US history Tlaloc.

Later.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM

If you read the DoI then you don’t understand it.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:23 PM

Certainly I understand it, it’s just wrong. What part of that don’t you understand?

You do not have unalienable rights as demonstrated above. What’s more the formulation it uses ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ don’t even correspond to actual rights within the US. They are vague concepts at best.

It’s flowery prose, not meant to be thought of as a legal document, so why are you insisting on trying to treat it as such?

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:27 PM

Anyone who has never heard of the War between the States isn’t from the US.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM

I’ve heard it many times, always in the context of bigots trying to paint the Civil War as something other than, you know, a war to civilize the southern barbarians. :)

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:28 PM

Read US history Tlaloc.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM

Your problem is you stopped there. The key is to also think critically about what you have read.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:29 PM

Your answer is nonsense- if the government doesn’t respect the right you don’t have it because it can and will use force to abrogate your supposed right. It makes no sense to say you have the right to free speech if in fact you will be imprisoned and tortured for exercising that ‘right.’ Clearly you do NOT have that right in China.

Your understanding of the meaning of a right is certainly different than mine.

Your statement makes plain that you are fine with a government imposing its will upon the unwilling. (Redundant, I know. I’m going slow for you)

By your statement, a government once empowered may abrogate any right at will. This is not yet North Korea.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM

Your statement makes plain that you are fine with a government imposing its will upon the unwilling. (Redundant, I know. I’m going slow for you)

By your statement, a government once empowered may abrogate any right at will. This is not yet North Korea.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM

That’s because you have issues with reading. I never said it was a great thing that you lose your first amendment rights when you leave the US, merely that you will. I’d be thrilled if every country on earth enacted something like the bill of rights. But they haven’t.

Whether a government can abrogate a right at will depends on the nature of the government. In our case it requires an amendment to do so. That’s very far from at will. And that’s a good idea in general, even though it leads to problems it provides an important safety.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:34 PM

I was born (and live) in the US, darwin. Why do you guys make this stuff up?

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM

But why are you still here?
You would obviously prefer to live in a place where others tell you how you should live.

LoganSix on January 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM

But why are you still here?
You would obviously prefer to live in a place where others tell you how you should live.

LoganSix on January 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM

You may want to invest in a reading comprehension class.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM

That’s because you have issues with reading. I never said it was a great thing that you lose your first amendment rights when you leave the US, merely that you will. I’d be thrilled if every country on earth enacted something like the bill of rights. But they haven’t.

Whether a government can abrogate a right at will depends on the nature of the government. In our case it requires an amendment to do so. That’s very far from at will. And that’s a good idea in general, even though it leads to problems it provides an important safety.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 2:34 PM

My reading skills are fine. My ability to infer works as well.

Your answer is nonsense- if the government doesn’t respect the right you don’t have it because it can and will use force to abrogate your supposed right. It makes no sense to say you have the right to free speech if in fact you will be imprisoned and tortured for exercising that ‘right.’ Clearly you do NOT have that right in China.

I would posit that a right still exists if one is in China, Chile, or Chicago. Whether or not that right is of practical use in a particular place is another matter, but I find it charming that I am debating that human rights exist with a dyed-in-the-wool leftist doctrinaire.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Roberts won’t do a damned thing. “Too political”.

He’s too damned dumb to realize that everything King Barack does “is political”.

GarandFan on January 27, 2016 at 3:10 PM

I would posit that a right still exists if one is in China, Chile, or Chicago. Whether or not that right is of practical use in a particular place is another matter, but I find it charming that I am debating that human rights exist with a dyed-in-the-wool leftist doctrinaire.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 3:07 PM

You can posit it, if you like, but you’re objectively wrong, so I’m not sure why you’d bother.

Also you aren’t debating that they exist, you are trying to argue they spring fully formed from the essence of the universe. I’m arguing they derive from governments. Your position is easily disproven.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Tlaloc’s opinion that government is the source of our rights is, of course, a fundamental flaw, and a reason why he’s a fascist leftist freak.

What government giveth, government can take away. And there is no justification, ever, for a people to revolt against their government, because they are but slaves to it, utterly dependent upon it for what little liberty the government, in it’s graciousness, gives them.

Tlaloc is arguing the Divine Right of Kings, except dressed in modern form. It is the right of governments to rule, and to do whatever they want. And nothing can be bad if done by the government, for from government all rights and relationships spring.

Under Tlaloc’s logic, the Jews should never have resisted the Nazi’s. Under Tlaloc’s argument, we should never have fought the civil war, since slavery was permitted by the government! It had not extended any rights to black people; why should anyone have complained? Government is God, and always right!

If you disagree, then clearly, morality and rights spring from somewhere other than government if we are capable of seeing that government is wrong on somethings. Question, Tlaloc: Segregation–was that wrong? It was, after all, a doctrine of Government. Could it have been wrong, and if so, on what basis?

Vanceone on January 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM

You can posit it, if you like, but you’re objectively wrong, so I’m not sure why you’d bother.

Also you aren’t debating that they exist, you are trying to argue they spring fully formed from the essence of the universe. I’m arguing they derive from governments. Your position is easily disproven.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Wrong.

Rights are universal unless you subscribe to no moral or ethical construct of society.

Rights that are denied by certain legal or governmental theories or entities are still rights. That they cannot be accessed by some does not obviate their existence.

Enough of my time is wasted for one afternoon.

EPA still sucks vomit.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Tlaloc’s opinion that government is the source of our rights is, of course, a fundamental flaw, and a reason why he’s a fascist leftist freak.

What government giveth, government can take away. And there is no justification, ever, for a people to revolt against their government, because they are but slaves to it, utterly dependent upon it for what little liberty the government, in it’s graciousness, gives them.

Vanceone on January 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM

I am sure that consent of the governed is not on Tlaloc’s hit parade.

Pity that.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM

I am sure that consent of the governed is not on Tlaloc’s hit parade.

Pity that.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM

The problem with people like Tlaloc is they simply don’t understand the left’s pursuit of power. They think the left’s goal is to help them but in reality it’s all about power … for themselves. People like Tlaloc have always had their heads crushed by the very people they supported.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 4:37 PM

I’m late coming back to this thread, but I’m glad to see that T-loc is being as obtuse as ever. Just a couple of points to add to the converse. The War Between the States is the official name, via joint resolution of Congress sometime in the 1950’s’, I believe. It was NOT a civil war, that being defined as one or more entities duking it out to control ONE government. The South, Constitutionally, seceded because of egregious overreach of the Northern controlled Federal government (financial raping of the South via odious taxes).Slavery, though evil by our standards today, was Constitutional, thanks to some compromising by the Founders and subsequent SCOTUS rulings. Segregation came about via, again, the Supreme Court, in an 1896 decision. The ONLY negative vote was from the only Southern judge on the court. Segregation was a Yankee invention. The War kicked off when Lincoln decided he needed to force the Southern states back into the Union, He was sending 8,000 troops to reinforce Ft Sumter, thereby, forcing Beaurgard’s hand. The North invaded and destroyed the South, not the other way around. Thousands died from starvation and exposure as the result. Of course, T-loc would just as soon that every Southern man, woman and child be killed and the South repopulated with carpetbaggers. BTW, that’s what Sherman seriously suggested to his wife in a letter to her in 1864. Deo Vindice

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM

What government giveth, government can take away. And there is no justification, ever, for a people to revolt against their government, because they are but slaves to it, utterly dependent upon it for what little liberty the government, in it’s graciousness, gives them.

That doesn’t even remotely follow.

Tlaloc is arguing the Divine Right of Kings, except dressed in modern form. It is the right of governments to rule, and to do whatever they want. And nothing can be bad if done by the government, for from government all rights and relationships spring.

Nope.

Under Tlaloc’s logic, the Jews should never have resisted the Nazi’s. Under Tlaloc’s argument, we should never have fought the civil war, since slavery was permitted by the government! It had not extended any rights to black people; why should anyone have complained? Government is God, and always right!

You should probably review what the civil war was because your characterization here is completely backwards. But then nothing in your paragraph above is true.

If you disagree, then clearly, morality and rights spring from somewhere other than government if we are capable of seeing that government is wrong on somethings. Question, Tlaloc: Segregation–was that wrong? It was, after all, a doctrine of Government. Could it have been wrong, and if so, on what basis?

Vanceone on January 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM

Actually if you disagree then you have successfully realized Vance’s premise is hugely flawed. Morality does not arise from government and has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. Morality is a personal evaluation of right and wrong.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:12 PM

Rights are universal unless you subscribe to no moral or ethical construct of society.

Rights that are denied by certain legal or governmental theories or entities are still rights. That they cannot be accessed by some does not obviate their existence.

Enough of my time is wasted for one afternoon.

EPA still sucks vomit.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Your concept of ‘right’ is then merely ‘something I want or wish to have’ rather than something you actually have. You have no right to free speech except in those places where you are granted that right by government (which really means where government will protect that right).

SOcietyr is merely an agreement by a group to behave according to certain rules. It is not fundamentally moral or ethical except to whatever extent you are prepared to let society decide morals and ethics for you.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:14 PM

I am sure that consent of the governed is not on Tlaloc’s hit parade.

Pity that.

hillbillyjim on January 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM

And you’re once again wrong, but fancy that.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Of course, T-loc would just as soon that every Southern man, woman and child be killed and the South repopulated with carpetbaggers.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM

Hardly, but it’d be nice if they stopped trying to defend their completely indefensible bigotry, including your attempt here.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:16 PM

Actually if you disagree then you have successfully realized Vance’s premise is hugely flawed. Morality does not arise from government and has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. Morality is a personal evaluation of right and wrong.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:12 PM

Rights, as envisioned by the Founders and codified by the Constitution have much to do with morality. The Bill of Rights is loosely based on the ten Commandments of the Bible. The Founders, almost to a man, were deists and their Christian/moral constructs guided their efforts. They firmly believed that basic, individual rights are natural and come from God, not government designed by some secular wizard. Governments do not have rights; they have powers, which in this country under our Constitution, are derived from the consent of the people. The Constitution guarantees those rights and prevents government from denying them by fiat, which the current bureaucratic form of progressivism seeks to do.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:24 PM

Hardly, but it’d be nice if they stopped trying to defend their completely indefensible bigotry, including your attempt here.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:16 PM

Not nearly as bad as the hispanics in the southwest. Now that’s some indefensible bigotry.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 5:25 PM

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:24 PM

It’s a waste of time. Tlaloc yearns for crushing tyranny.

He’s also a foreigner with no knowledge of US history or the ideals that this nation was founded on.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Hardly, but it’d be nice if they stopped trying to defend their completely indefensible bigotry, including your attempt here.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:16 PM

Bigotry is universal and all of us are bigoted in one form or another. You display yours quite openly. Racism, however is uniquely particular to the individual. You won’t find it here. Facts are facts, however painful they may be. Slavery has existed since Man formed groups, whether it be of the agrarian bent or of the sweat shops of NYC. It is alive and well in the current form of the entitlement society. Good intentions gone bad and a permanent feature of the progressive cult. BTW, the Constitution is NOT a ‘living document’, except in the sense that it can be amended through a long and, by design, difficult process. It cannot (should not) be changed via SCOTUS machinations or bureaucratic fiat. Deo Vindice

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM

Rights, as envisioned by the Founders and codified by the Constitution have much to do with morality.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:24 PM

Then they hadn’t thought the matter through.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM

It’s a waste of time. Tlaloc yearns for crushing tyranny.

He’s also a foreigner with no knowledge of US history or the ideals that this nation was founded on.

darwin on January 27, 2016 at 5:31 PM

*shrug*

I find it odd that you insist on being wrong. It very much seems like if I told you the sky were blue you;d demand that it had to be plaid.

It makes me giggle.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:55 PM

Then they hadn’t thought the matter through.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM

I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. I’m done with you.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:57 PM

Bigotry is universal and all of us are bigoted in one form or another.

Biologically everyone is driven to feel bigotry, but you aren’t actually a bigot unless you give in to that impulse.

You display yours quite openly. Racism, however is uniquely particular to the individual. You won’t find it here.

Except for the neo-confederates still trying to defend the south.

Facts are facts, however painful they may be. Slavery has existed since Man formed groups, whether it be of the agrarian bent or of the sweat shops of NYC. It is alive and well in the current form of the entitlement society.

so much for ‘facts.’

BTW, the Constitution is NOT a ‘living document’, except in the sense that it can be amended through a long and, by design, difficult process. It cannot (should not) be changed via SCOTUS machinations or bureaucratic fiat. Deo Vindice

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM

So you want to hold us slaves to the prejudices and views of a bunch of dead men who were no better or worse than people today. That’s idiotic.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 5:59 PM

I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. I’m done with you.

vnvet on January 27, 2016 at 5:57 PM

You should stop deifying the founding fathers. They were just people. They made plenty of mistakes. Stop pretending they were infallible.

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 6:00 PM

Tlaloc on January 27, 2016 at 1:56 PM

He didn’t “make it” genius, as a matter of fact “Civil War” is the more “made up” term. It was known as The War Between the States WHILE it was occurring.

Read this, if you can reach the comprehension level necessary to understand it:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/10-facts-about-the-civil-war/

PJ Emeritus on January 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM