The World without the US on Climate Change

[opinterph]

The 'Travis Translation' of Article 1, Section 10 (Constitutional Law Reporter)

 

[Kulindahr]

Context means little in a document so short and compact as the Constitution. Each clause is entitled to be taken literally. This issue comes up in the 2d Amendment dispute. Liberals want the mention of militia to limit the right to bear arms. It does not.

The issue in the Second is not context, it's grammar.

 

[ballcaphair]

Context means little in a document so short and compact as the Constitution. Each clause is entitled to be taken literally. This issue comes up in the 2d Amendment dispute. Liberals want the mention of militia to limit the right to bear arms. It does not.

Context means little in a document so short and compact as the Constitution or a Commandment. "Thou shall not steal." Is short, but has an enormous context. Granted, the Constitution is not scripture, but exemplifies context.

 

[Benvolio]

If you want context, remember, the Constitution also provides Congress has the power "3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
And remember, Art I Sec 10 also prohibits agreements among the states without congressional approval. Is that also about war? I don't know what California and China are up to with their scheme, but is invalid without Congressional approval.

 

[rareboy]

So clueless.

Well get ready to shit your pants because the EU is planning on making direct climate change accords with the states directly.

And as I've noted, Ontario and California and Quebec already have an agreement in place under the Western Climate Initiative.

You'd better get going with all those cases you are going to file in the courts to block them.

But before you do, you might want to read up a bit first.

 

[Benvolio]

So clueless.

Well get ready to shit your pants because the EU is planning on making direct climate change accords with the states directly.

And as I've noted, Ontario and California and Quebec already have an agreement in place under the Western Climate Initiative.

You'd better get going with all those cases you are going to file in the courts to block them.

But before you do, you might want to read up a bit first.

.

You are assuming that congress did not approve the agreement, and you assume that it is binding and legally valid. If it is just nice talk,not requiring anything, it has probably never been tested.

 

[rareboy]

Uhhhh. You are the one making all the assumptions here.

I know exactly what the facts are.

You are the one who needs to do more research and thinking before jumping to conclusions all the time.

 

[gsdx]

.

You are assuming that congress did not approve the agreement, and you assume that it is binding and legally valid. If it is just nice talk,not requiring anything, it has probably never been tested.

[Text: Removed]

You cited an article and a section as an argument against the agreement between China and California. I investigated and pointed out that you took your single 'argument' phrase completely out of context to prove your point. And now you're trying to sound smart by making us think that the section talking about war isn't really talking about war, but about what you want to tell us it's talking about.

All you're doing is showing your ignorance of your own constitution.

 

[Benvolio]

Uhhhh. You are the one making all the assumptions here.

I know exactly what the facts are.

You are the one who needs to do more research and thinking before jumping to conclusions all the time.

Nope. Look again. I have not assumed anything about the alleged Ontario agreement. I don't even assume there is such a thing.

 

[rareboy]

So Hawaii is the first state to pass legislation committing to the goals of the Paris Climate Accord.

Hawaii is one of more than 10 states that have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition committed to upholding the Paris accord despite the federal government’s withdrawal from it. The alliance, announced by the Democratic governors of California, Washington and New York last week, also includes Minnesota, Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont.

So yeah.

There is a way that US states can be part of the Accord.

Just pass their own laws. Which probably are binding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/...rod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0

 

[Benvolio]

So Hawaii is the first state to pass legislation committing to the goals of the Paris Climate Accord.



So yeah.

There is a way that US states can be part of the Accord.

Just pass their own laws. Which probably are binding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/...rod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0

They are probably binding if they do not conflict with federal law or impede interstate or international commerce.

 

[Stardreamer]

They are probably binding if they do not conflict with federal law or impede interstate or international commerce.

That is the rub is it not? Withdrawing from the Paris Accord did not create any law or treaty obligation that says that the US will not meet the Paris plan. The states are perfectly free to act on their own as long as there is no legal or treaty mandate from DC forbidding it.

 

[Benvolio]

That is the rub is it not? Withdrawing from the Paris Accord did not create any law or treaty obligation that says that the US will not meet the Paris plan. The states are perfectly free to act on their own as long as there is no legal or treaty mandate from DC forbidding it.

More than that, even in the absence of a specific Federal prohibition, states may not impose burdens on interstate or international commerce, because such regulation was delegated to the Federal government. Indeed one of the inspirations for the formation of the federal government was to avoid a hodgepodge of conflicting regulations and taxes on commerce between the states.

 

[ballcaphair]

More than that, even in the absence of a specific Federal prohibition, states may not impose burdens on interstate or international commerce, because such regulation was delegated to the Federal government. Indeed one of the inspirations for the formation of the federal government was to avoid a hodgepodge of conflicting regulations and taxes on commerce between the states.

If only it were so simple. A global economy has Apple operating out of Ireland. Profits, businesses and taxes are part of the hodgepodge. States and boundaries be damned. Congress, remember, is primarily lawmakers made of lawyers.

 

[Kulindahr]

If only it were so simple. A global economy has Apple operating out of Ireland. Profits, businesses and taxes are part of the hodgepodge. States and boundaries be damned. Congress, remember, is primarily lawmakers made of lawyers.

And a global economy, if the TPP had been adopted, would have meant that corporations had greater authority than countries -- so profit-pursuing lawyers would have ruled the world.

 

[Stardreamer]

More than that, even in the absence of a specific Federal prohibition, states may not impose burdens on interstate or international commerce, because such regulation was delegated to the Federal government. Indeed one of the inspirations for the formation of the federal government was to avoid a hodgepodge of conflicting regulations and taxes on commerce between the states.

I don't think there is a limitation on state's conducting business with other nations, they don't have to go through the Federal Government it enters into some business transaction with another country. I'm pretty sure Colorado Springs did not have to go through the State Department to negotiate its sister city agreement with Fujiyoshida. Yes, there are some limitations but I've seen no evidence that states are forbidden from engaging in international commerce and agreements without going through State.

California manages to impose indirect regulation on interstate commerce just by existing. Many of the environmental standards in our modern cars are there because they are required to be on cars in California and that market is so big that they just become standard on all cars.

 

[mikey3000]

Interesting little video. The Weather Channel vs. CNN on global warming...

 

[Benvolio]

Interesting little video. The Weather Channel vs. CNN on global warming...

The man made warming ideology justifies infinite government control of business and our lives. Republicans being libertarians at heart instinctively resist it. Liberals wanting to control everything, support it and silence dissenters.

 

[gsdx]

Hmmm. Who to believe. One man or thousands of scientists around the world or decades of rising temperatures and increasing CO2 levels or more powerful and deadly storms every year?

Hmmm.

 

[ballcaphair]

^Yep. Also the house is on fire! Please continue to argue over the arson. I'm going to save the children because they don't care who did what. I'm going to do what I can. You know, for the children.