Navigation

Tag Archives | EPA

SCOTUS and the EPA vs Private Property

By on April 23, 2012 in Big Government, Law 0

On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.

Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.

Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. ”While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.

How is that for giving away Sovereignty? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Stopping the EPA and Cap and Trade in Virginia

By on November 15, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 4

Two bills, both attempting to reassert state sovereignty over environmental regulations, will be considered in Virginia’s 2011 legislative session. The first, House bill 1357 (HB1357) addresses the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions specifically, while the second, House Bill 1397 (HB1397) seeks to protect Virginia homeowners from potential cap and trade requirements. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

Texas and the EPA

By on August 31, 2010 in Big Government, State Sovereignty 1

Texas vs. EPA update:

At this moment, the State of Texas is clashing with the EPA over the EPA’s arbitrary and unconstitutional changes to the Clean Air Act.  (The EPA seems to have forgotten that Congress, not a department of the executive branch, writes our laws.)  The whole story is here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan Shaw have in no uncertain terms told the EPA they will not comply with their illegal changes:

“On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Please contact these men (see below for addresses & links) and encourage them to continue to stand against arbitrary rule-making by the federal government.  And ask your own state’s governor and legislature to act with the bravery these two men have exhibited; to protect your own state from a hyperactive, unrestrained EPA.

Texas AG:
E-mail:  mailto:greg.abbott@oag.state.tx.us

Other contact information:

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/contacts.shtml

Texas TCEQ Chairman:

E-mail:  ac@tceq.state.tx.us

Other contact information:  http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/about/directory/comm_directory.html

Continue Reading 1

Federal Government Out of Control

By on August 12, 2010 in Big Government 1

Here in Montana we continue to wonder where the tyranny will stop. We continue to get snubbed by our elected officials at all levels of government with arrogance leading the way. Recently Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester worked overtime to undermine our sovereignty.

They are both part of the eco~tyranny locking up our resources making closed door deals with not only the United States Eco~extremists, but with foreign governments without the approval of the people. Working behind closed doors with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer they have effectivly bypassed the 1872 mining act providing for the exploration and development of minerals.

The Health Care regulatory takings law is just now starting to show the tyranny that will undue the repbulic of America from the inside. Forcing citizens to purchase into the health care plan will undermine the individual liberties of every American citizen. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 1

Federal Action Alerts Fail, Again

By on June 11, 2010 in Activism, Nullification 1

Over the past few days, I received tons of emails urging people to “take action!” What was the goal this time? Stopping EPA regulations. There was a Senate resolution that needed to be passed. And surprise, surprise – that action failed, just like most all of them do (HR1207 anyone?)

From the Washington Post:

A Senate resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases failed narrowly Thursday, providing a temporary respite to environmental activists hoping to enact a mandatory cap on emissions before the end of the year.

But the 47 to 53 vote showed that even in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Congress remains divided over how best to address climate change. The contentious debate, in which some lawmakers suggested federal regulation would strike a devastating blow to the economy, suggested the Senate is far from decided on whether to put a price on the industrial emissions that stem from everyday activities such as lighting a home or driving a car….

Nah…what the 47-53 vote shows me is that spending all your energy begging federal politicians to vote for the constitution, or expand liberty – doesn’t work. No one remembers the 2nd place finisher in politics, especially on a run of the mill big-government vote like this.

How about a different direction – one where energy spent can actually make a difference? Still a lot of work, but at least we’ve got a chance. Brian Roberts was definitely on the right path with his recent article, Wanted: EPA out of Texas.

Continue Reading 1

The EPA can go to Hell, and I will go to Texas

By on June 2, 2010 in Big Government, Nullification, State Sovereignty 1

Last week, the feds sent the Environmental Protection Agency out to harass the sovereign state of Texas. Texas needs to reclaim the spirit of Davy Crockett, when he famously proclaimed “you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas”; and send the federal agency packing. Here’s why and how.

EPA’s Goal is Centralization of Power

By sending the EPA to Texas, the federal government’s goal is not environmental improvements. The goal is centralization of power. The tactic is to use the unelected bureaucrats of the EPA to increase Texas dependence on the federal government through arbitrary and economically crippling regulation.

Refinery permits are just tools that the EPA intends to use to control the Texas oil and gas industry. EPA control can force Texas into dependence in at least two ways. First, though excessive regulation of a major industry, economic growth will be stifled. This will create more state dependence on federal funds. Second, unnecessary EPA regulations will cost Texans jobs. This is will create individual dependence on welfare programs and since these programs include state mandated funding, Texas will be hit with additional liabilities.

The political problem for the EPA is that Texas’ common sense policies have resulted in cleaner air while maintaining one of the healthiest economies in our nation during the current recession. This Texas independence and success is why the feds will continue to financially attack Texas. A self-sustaining state is very problematic for a federal government that is trying to centralize all the power in Washington. So expect the relationship between the Texas state government and the U.S. government to increasingly deteriorate.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading 1

What About the EPA?

By on December 9, 2009 in Big Government 3

Writes Jeff Matthews:

Can you believe these clowns now claim it is within their jurisdiction to regulate CO2 because it is a dangerous gas? Good God! CO2? In that event, so is water, oxygen, …. err…. what wouldn’t be on the dangerous list?

My thoughts on the EPA? They couldn’t be summed up any better than Lew Rockwell did in his March 1990 commentary for the “Free Market” from the Mises Institute:

The EPA – a quintessential big business welfare agency – was founded by Richard Nixon through an unconstitutional executive order. Ever since then, it has achieved bureaucratic success by handing out special-interest construction contracts while catering to the most anti-capitalist, indeed anti-human, forces in our society. The EPA should be dismantled, not exalted. We have yet to learn that the environmental vision is just as impossible as the socialist one, and just as dangerous in the attempt.

Agreed.

Continue Reading 3