The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case will determine how far EPA can extend its regulatory overreach, to control “climate changing” carbon dioxide from power plants and other facilities – by ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” provisions, rewriting clear language in the Clean Air Act, and disregarding laws that require the agency to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and what it is regulating.
Tagged: Supreme Court
“If you like your health plan, you can keep it,” is the Lie of the Year, according to PolitiFact. But Barack Obama has been operating under an even more momentous lie for his entire presidency.
The Supreme Court has taken up another case based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s campaign of lies that carbon dioxide is the cause of “climate change” and claims about the quality of air in the United States. The Court is composed of lawyers, not scientists.
Levin explains in the book that the state power was included in the Constitution precisely for a situation like today, when a runaway federal government breaks through the bounds of the Constitution, and threatens the nation with tyranny.
No one’s liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in session, and freedom is lost one government program at a time. Yet some people will trade freedom for comfort, especially when they perceive that someone else is footing the bill.
An opportunity to move back toward reinstituting the protections of economic freedoms (and away from the unbridled deference paid to police power legislation) has presented itself in the Great State of Louisiana.
Why should unduly burdensome regulations that place obstacles in the path of those looking to exercise one right be struck down while equally burdensome regulations that infringe on another right are upheld?
Anything the Congress does still must be constitutional. As the Court reiterated yesterday, the Voting Rights Act “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs” and that “a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.”
Since I am one-eighth Cherokee and my spouse is the daughter of immigrants from Italy, our marriage was interracial and presumably illegal in Virginia. We often entertained renting a hotel[...]