Arizona Senate Committee Passes Bill to take on Unilateral EPA Rules over Intrastate Waters

PHOENIX (Mar. 20, 2015) This week, an Arizona Senate committee passed a bill that would help block unilateral EPA rules over “nonnavigable intrastate waters or waterways.” The bill previously passed the full House, and on Wednesday, the Senate committee vote was 4-3.

Details

Arizona House Passes Bill to take on Unilateral EPA Rules over Intrastate Waters

PHOENIX (Mar. 16, 2015) Last week, the Arizona House passed a bill that would help block unilateral EPA rules over “nonnavigable intrastate waters or waterways.” The vote was 34-24. Introduced by State Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6) on Feb. 9, House Bill 2055 (HB2055) reads, in part: The Governor of this state must approve and the President…

Details

Arizona House Committee Passes Measure to Effectively Nullify Unilateral EPA Rules over Intrastate Waters

PHOENIX, Mar. 2, 2015 – Today, an Arizona state House Committee approved a measure that would require the state to block unilateral EPA agency rules over “nonnavigable intrastate waters or waterways,” an action that would make them nearly impossible to enforce.

Details

Arizona Senate Committee Passes Measure to Effectively Nullify New EPA Rules over Intrastate Waters

PHOENIX, Feb. 16, 2015 – Today, an Arizona state Senate Committee approved a measure that would require the state to block any EPA agency regulations over “nonnavigable intrastate waters or waterways.” The vote was 5-1. Introduced by Sen. Steve Pierce (R-Prescott), Senate Concurrent Resolution 1015 (SCR1015) directly challenges and would effectively nullify new rules over…

Details

Arizona State Senate Proposal Rebukes EPA, Affirms 10th Amendment

Arizona is taking the first steps toward nullifying the EPA, as a resolution has been proposed in the State Senate that would serve as a stern rebuke against the federal agency. The resolution, SR1003, says, “Whereas, the rulemaking authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is not authorized by the Constitution of the United…

Details

SCOTUS and the EPA vs Private Property

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?

Details