Yep,
"Stretch" about says it all!!

Gary K.

She swears up and down she's never had any plastic surgery, though.

God, I come back after a few days off over Christmas, and see this.


BTW, Merry Christmas everyone. Hope the new year finds us here and well.

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2008/01/house-speak...oo-ignorant-too.html

"Appallingly ignorant and politically greedy"
I give you Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi!

Just as a democracy must fear leaders who might threaten our freedoms, we must also fear leaders who are so stupid or indifferent to the facts that it inflicts economic and other harmful effects on our lives.

I give you Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi!

Today, in the space of an hour, I received three news releases from her office and they are instructive and frightening. It is one thing to be partisan, but quite another to deliberately ignore reality.

Madame Pelosi: “For the first time, the price of oil has risen to more than $100 a barrel—almost four times the price when President Bush took office.” This assumes, of course, that the President of the United States has any control or influence over the price of oil, a global commodity whose prices are largely determined by mercantile exchanges responding to nothing more complex than supply and demand.

Pelosi is also assuming that Americans are unaware that, under her leadership, Congress has refused to permit exploration and extraction of oil in Alaska’s ANWR where billions of barrels remain untapped. Congress, in addition, has placed 85% of the nation’s continental shelf off the East and West coasts off limits to any exploration.

Claiming that the “New Direction Congress” passed landmark “energy security” legislation that included a “historic CAFE increase to boost fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks….” Pelosi ignores the fact that there is a finite amount of energy that can be extracted from a gallon of gasoline and even less if it includes an additive of ethanol, known in some circles as moonshine. The new standards defy the laws of physics.

To achieve these new standards, autos would have to be much lighter, i.e., even more dangerous to their occupants than today. The new standards will, if enacted, kill an estimated 4,000 more people on the nation’s highways.
She then promised that the continuance of “multi-billion dollar subsidies given to Big Oil companies” will be repealed. This is just brilliant. Subsidies for ethanol manufacture are okay. Subsidies for those selling airy, low efficiency wind power are okay, but the industry on which we all depend to provide oil for transportation and heating is to be deprived of its subsidies, further discouraging any exploration, extracting, or refining of the lifeblood of the nation’s economy.

She even wants to “pursue anti-trust actions against OPEC entities that fix the price of oil.” You can imagine how pleased they will be by that. Can one bring an anti-trust action against a sovereign nation? I think not.

In another January 2nd statement, Pelosi made it quite clear that she is unhappy with the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion that individual States cannot pass legislation that requires higher clean air standards than the federal government. This is why we have a federal government! When was the last time she read the U.S. Constitution that allocates these powers to the federal government so that individual States do not create sheer chaos.

Finally, her office announced that she has managed to snag $82 million “to clean up Hunters Point.” That it falls in her district and will fund San Francisco’s “redevelopment plan” should come as no surprise. Why this isn’t an expense for which the city is responsible goes unexplained, but I am sure the citizens of the other 49 States will be delighted to know their taxes have been diverted to this project.

In three separate statements on the same day, Speaker Pelosi reveals herself to be appallingly ignorant and politically greedy.

quote:

In another January 2nd statement, Pelosi made it quite clear that she is unhappy with the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion that individual States cannot pass legislation that requires higher clean air standards than the federal government. This is why we have a federal government! When was the last time she read the U.S. Constitution that allocates these powers to the federal government so that individual States do not create sheer chaos.

Call me appallingly ignorant too, but where in the Constitution does it say she's wrong? In fact, I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the creation of the EPA was Constitutional.

All that aside, why should an individual state have to allow dirtier air than it wants? Why has California been allowed to have stricter vehicle emissions than other states?


Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

quote:

In another January 2nd statement, Pelosi made it quite clear that she is unhappy with the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion that individual States cannot pass legislation that requires higher clean air standards than the federal government. This is why we have a federal government! When was the last time she read the U.S. Constitution that allocates these powers to the federal government so that individual States do not create sheer chaos.

Yes, I think that's hogwash. We've discussed it in here a few time over the years about the way the Cal-EPA was so much more restrictive than the Federal EPA. Same with OSHA vs state OSHA organizations for workplace standards. I don't know of of any general national pre-emption against more strict regulation by individual states. There may be individual regulations on emissions by certain industries that preclude states from issuing more strict ones, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

quote:

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the creation of the EPA was Constitutional.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF 1946
http://www.answers.com/topic/administrative-procedures-act?cat=biz-fin

"1932 the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to assign the adjudication of so-called "public rights" cases to administrative agencies (Crowell v. Benson.)"


HISTORY OF THE EPA
http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/print/formative.htm

"As an enforcer of the law, EPA was bound by congressional mandates. But as an instrument of the executive branch, the agency also had responsibility to the chief executive. After all, the president held broad constitutional authority to implement enforcement."


US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


ONE RECENT CASE CONCERNING EPA AUTHORITY --

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-1...57fo13/text.html#IIA


Just a little stuff found in about 15 minutes using Google which may begin to uncover some clues.

quote:

Originally posted by richlady248:

quote:

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the creation of the EPA was Constitutional.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF 1946
http://www.answers.com/topic/administrative-procedures-act?cat=biz-fin

"1932 the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to assign the adjudication of so-called "public rights" cases to administrative agencies (Crowell v. Benson.)"

Is that like saying Roe V. Wade can be found in the 14th Amendment?

quote:

US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

This says the president can appoint people not listed, but it doesn't say he has the authority to create that I can see, and it doesn't seem Congress has the power to create such an agency.

Regardless, the federal government should have no business nor authority to tell a state they can't have stricter standards.

quote:

Regardless, the federal government should have no business nor authority to tell a state they can't have stricter standards.

I utterly agree with this statement taken on face value. In some instances of interstate commerce, I think there might be opportunity for impracticality that might need to be looked at though.

I cannot find the text of Benson vs. Crowell. I would like to have that.

What I want, as much as you, is to try to figure out what language in the Constitution explains the ability of Congress to delegate authority.

You note in paragraph 9 of Section 8 you have provided about setting up tribunals. Sounds military, but has this also been interpreted to mean setting up all courts of authority? I don't know, I'm just wondering.

What I want to know is the issue of "agency."
That is, it's been going on since the beginning of time. One who has the property or the power ordinarily is seen as having the implicit right to delegate that to someone acting on his/her behalf.

Can you find this in the Constitution? Is it possible the framers left this out? Or, have the courts interpreted words to satisfy that the delegation of authority in the context of "agency" is Constitutional?

If not, then not only is the setting up of the EPA unconstitutional, but a whole lot more is too.

Giving a dollar to a 16-year-old clerk in a convenience store for a loaf of bread (on sale at that price these days) is therefore unconstitutional, because the clerk is acting as an agent of the owner of the store who could be in the back room, across town, or 3,000 miles away.

The manager who hires you on behalf of his/her boss is acting unconstitutionally therefore, and so is the payroll officer (if other than the owner) who signs your paycheck. One could go on and on.

Everything is therefore null and void. So where and when, and in reference to what language has this discrepancy been resolved? Or is it in there, and I like you, just don't see it?

quote:

Originally posted by richlady248:
Everything is therefore null and void. So where and when, and in reference to what language has this discrepancy been resolved? Or is it in there, and I like you, just don't see it?

I recall hearing that the majority of what Congress does is unconstitutional. I'm no scholar, but perusing the Constitution one does notice how limited Congress and the President are supposed to be.

I think the courts have made the federal government what it is today. They see things that aren't there, like my mention of abortion and the 14th Amendment. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that's a crock.

This isn't about the EPA, but one of the GOP presidential platforms said this about the Dept. of Education:

"Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."
link

I hope I've followed this discussion correctly.

If the Federal Government sets a 10 cent tax on a gallon of gasoline, doing so doesn't imply that a state can't set an additional 15 cent tax on a gallon of gasoline.

Unless Congress or the EPA has mandated a ceiling of some kind, a state should be allowed to charge whatever additional tax on a gallon of gas it wants.

So, by the same standard, it seems to me that the EPA telling a state that it can't set its own emission standards because they are ABOVE federal standards, would be unconstitutional, so long as that state isn't colluding with other states in a plan for them to do the same.

quote:

"Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."
link

You raise something very significant in this discussion which may serve much to, as Rush Limbaugh would say, "shine the light of truth" on something near and dear to all of us on this forum. Let me address this in three parts, starting first, bear with me, as being a little bit of a devil's advocate --

1. EPA, FDA, etc. Assuming for sake of argument Congress has right to delegate authority and form such bodies, let's also grant that both these bodies are concerned with matters of interstate commerce.

Let's also consider what the framers knew at the time they were living. Was "the environment" a concern then? We've all heard about tea imports, but otherwise, isn't it likely that agricultural production and marketing in the late 1800's were still largely local enterprises?

Now, I'm no environmentalist wacko, but I don't think there's a conflict with both a conservative and a reasonable conservationist. That is, I personally witnessed in the first half of my life so far, various bodies of water becoming unacceptably polluted; and I witnessed in the second half how much progress has been made in the reversing of this. Is this a bad thing?

Too, this often is an interstate issue, eg., factory in one state dumps into a river that flows into another.

Agreed EPA lost it's mind with the ETS report of 1992, and is still pretty nutty; but as for me, I have to think a little more "study" is needed to decide what needs to be chopped and what should be kept in the functions of agencies like EPA, FDA, etc, rather than a blanket "okay let's just shut them all down."

2. On the issue of education you raise a very good point, Squeezer. By contrast, our founding fathers knew quite a lot on this subject as evidenced by their own learning. (I think it was Sam Adams who was graduated from Harvard, eg., which I believe was founded in the 1600's.)

I think they could have considered quite well whether the tuition of children needed federal oversight. Children are necessarily "close to home." At the risk that the potential of some exceptionally bright children might be stunted in bad education states, I think the framers likely viewed this was a parental, local affair, and I personally would agree.

Moreover, there is nothing "commercial" about this, nor must it be interstate. Indeed, we loose the flavor of diversity of among states when we start to get into federal mind or behavioral control. I don't just agree with what the framers likely were thinking, the Consitution absolutely does not support this kind of federal intrusion into local culture.

3. Similarly, someone lighting up a cigarette in a bar in Tennessee has no impact whatever on what's going on in Arkansas. (The only possible argument is that those living on border towns [is TN on border with AK?] might cross over [a constitutional right to do so] to experience the culture of the other state -- but on balance that would work both ways. This is a flimsy argument anyway in view of Amendment X that if it's not in the constitution that's up to the states.)

Thus, by this reasoning, wouldn't a federal smoking ban would be unconstitutional?

Richlady,
I thought of several of the things you mentioned. Wouldn't it be the court's job as far as the water pollution scenario?

Yes, education is not the same as environment. I just find it funny that a major political party finds something unconstitutional, says they're going to do something about it, yet we still have the Dept. of Education which means they're still authorizing money for this illegal monstrosity.

And yes, a national smoking ban would be unconstitutional. It took an amendment to prohibit alcohol. Other things: The fed had to resort to blackmail to get states to lower BAC and to enforce seatbelt laws. They knew they hadn't the authority to impose laws. With smoking I think they're just so blinded they haven't even considered if they have the authority to do it.

Regarding whether or not such situations are being adjudicated to constitutional standard:

First, I wonder if Article I, Section 8, paragraph 9 might not hold some key to this --

quote:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

When I googled "administrative law courts" it seemed that the word "tribunals" is used interchangeably for courts.

Second, I would go for trying to learn how the Supreme Court may have already interpreted constitutionality on this issue. It would seem the following might be one such case to consider --

quote:

"1932 the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to assign the adjudication of so-called "public rights" cases to administrative agencies (Crowell v. Benson.)"

That's the starting point suggestion of this non-scholar. Many law schools may have libraries open to the public on a day pass for a small fee, or for free but possibly requiring a letter of reference such as from a municipal librarian.

If anyone does find this text, or some other more relevant, it would be great if they pass it along here.

I have a book published in 1840 about the state of Indiana for distribution throughout Europe to sell the state as a place to move to. It is wonder the book was published and distributed, it is about the size of a phone book and covers every aspect of the state.

Public education was discussed and described as a problem for the state, why, the people did not support it by either sending their children to school or financially by paying taxes to fund it.

The enviroment was discussed in the sense that a local creek was an open sewer. Currently this same creek is a sewer, completely enclosed and diverted underground.

So, in my opinion, our founding fathers had no concept of either issue. Most were educated at home by their parents or sought learning on their own. Some were from a wealthy background and their parents appreciated the value of a good education and sent their children to formal schooling.

Sewers developed as a concept long after the founding of this country.

The medical profession was still depending on leaches and bleeding.

Health Insurance was devised by the medical profession as a way to get their bills paid.

richlady248 wrote:

quote:

Second, I would go for trying to learn how the Supreme Court may have already interpreted constitutionality on this issue. It would seem the following might be one such case to consider --

Courts tend to see what they want to see (Roe v Wade). LOL

Might be interesting to see though.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
So, in my opinion, our founding fathers had no concept of either issue.

Sewers developed as a concept long after the founding of this country.

But it doesn't matter if the founding fathers didn't know the telephone, television, trans fats, etc, were in the future. The Constitution limits their power unless amended. And from the looks of the Constitution, they didn't much for them to do.

Agriculture was real big back then, but I don't see anything in there for a Dept. of Agriculture.

As far as sewers go, doesn't NYC or Boston still have a wooden water pipe in their city, two hundred years old or something like that? I doubt it carries sewage. It'd probably have rotted away a long time ago.

quote:

Courts tend to see what they want to see (Roe v Wade). LOL

Agreed, and the very same Constitution grants them the power to have "what they want to see" prevail over any and all of us, at any time.

quote:

Public education was discussed and described as a problem for the state, why, the people did not support it by either sending their children to school or financially by paying taxes to fund it.

Yep, there it is, Bruce. Indianan taxpayers in 1840 weren't all that crazy about using their states rights to take responsibility for educating children.

Is isn't just about the big bad federal government pounding down on everybody else. A lot of it gets started because people won't get stuff resolved at the lower level and then they clamor up to the federal government to do it for them.

Seeing the federal government as an answer to everything is one trend that's a long way off from being reversed.

This is old news , but this is how the repubs and RHINOS in OheilO voted on SCHIP.


Here is the GOP roll call:

YES
Mike Turner
Dave Hobson
Pat Tiberi
Steve LaTourette
Deborah Pryce
Ralph Regula

NO
Steve Chabot
Jean Schmidt
Jim Jordan
John Boehner

http://stopthefetincrease.com/