It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Discussing Fracking Chemicals to be Outlawed…

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:40 AM

The US Constitution created a limited federal government. All powers of the federal government are clearly spelled out in the US Constitution and there are only a limited number of them. The majority of government powers remain with the States or individuals. If the federal government passes laws that intrude into areas that were left in the hands of the States or individuals those laws violate the US Constitution.

The constitution is the box the governments operate from.

A great many of the founding fathers strongly disagreed with the notions that we are bound unconstitutional until they are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is the sole guardian of the Constitution. They believed that “we the people” are the final arbiters of all things constitutional and unconstitutional and we the people are the absolute guardians of the Constitution.

Many founding fathers also believed the States have the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and the States have the power to declare unconstitutional laws null and void. The most notable of the founding fathers that believe this are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In 1798 the US Congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts and President John Adams signed them into law. These laws were never appealed to the Supreme Court. In response to these clearly unconstitutional laws....
Interesting points about the self appointed powers. I like this one:

“Clearly, a federal law which is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all; it is null, void, invalid. And a Supreme Court decision, which is not a ‘law,’ has no ‘supremacy’—even if it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution. So it is the height of absurdity to claim that a Supreme Court decision that manifestly violates the Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’” (William Jasper) .....

“Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies.” (Joseph Smith, Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution)

This entire article brings in what the founding fathers defined.

But all of this is based on "we the people".

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Its not even a supreme court, or a federal court argument, its null and void as law at all. It's not legal, don't follow it. Don't follow bad orders ever.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:48 AM
The entire debate about them passing laws, and people assuming, there goes the neighborhood. Well it is a problem if you follow them, and for some unexplained reason, our nations are filled with followers of the pied piper, they just follow, without a question and teach their children to. Unlawful unconstitutional laws, color of law, are null and void as if they were never passed at all.

Then, honoring this clause become judicial. Well you're supposed to follow them until, your sovereign state veto's it, or federal court veto's it, no no, the supreme court wants that right.

But that right is still not given it, for the clause refers to the law simply being null and voided, and people are not to follow it at all.

We The People!

In war times, such as Nazi Germany, the argument that we were simply following orders, and the huge piles of pseudo laws created by the nazi's (and they attempted to burn their paper work and yet could not get rid of all of it), was ignored completely. You could not follow bad orders, but had to follow your conscience and the contitution. Ignorance of the law was not an excuse. And they were imprisoned and executed.

By international law, "we the people" are subject to following bad laws, with consequence for doing so. Thus we the people are expected to use our conscience and null and void them.

Now, we the people need to take our power back in all our nations.

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:33 PM
I was already against fracking, but this makes me a little more passionate about it.

Harmless industries don't want to silence people by law. The only time you silence someone is when you can't make a stand against truth.

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:37 PM

originally posted by: Elathan

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: Elathan

Maybe you didnt read the article that you linked to above...?

The bill also requires that companies report any chemicals used in the drilling process. That list would be held confidentially by the state in case of emergency. However, the measure makes inappropriately revealing those chemical trade secretes a felony.

You realize a felony is a serious crime punishable by jail time i take it.

This is the source article:
Fracking story

Right, which makes sense...felony for state employees that reveal the chemical trade secrets...much like it's a felony for someone working for Coca-Cola to reveal the secret formula. So they are telling the state what they use, so there is transparency with the state, but they don't want other fracking companies to know. I'm fine with that.

Even if it is only a fine, a fine is wrong! People are expressing concerns for you benefit!

I don't know if you realize the effect of having a felony either. Among other things It's hard to find a job with a felony on your record. Speaking about fracking shouldn't ruin your life.
edit on 05pm01pm312014-05-21T13:35:10-05:0001America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 01:06 PM
This is a bit unrelated, but the mentality behind it it reminds me of the story Vice did on the BP oil clean up a while back for HBO.

They where showing clean up workers who where told by BP not to wear face masks and protective clothing, because their PR team realized it would give people the impression that it wasn't safe. Well guess what.... IT WASN'T SAFE! A huge % of the the clean up crew now has respiratory problems, and their bodies are breaking out in boils caused by the chemical corexit. It's also effecting their children at home. These kids weren't a part of the clean up. Corexit is banned in other countries that care about people more than money. We don't care.

Every time our safety and self interest goes up against corporate interests we lose, and there are always citizens willing to defend corporate profit over their own well being.

edit on 05pm01pm312014-05-21T13:07:19-05:0001America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:36 AM

Variable: I am not against fracking, but i simply do not trust the corporations to do anything but screw this up. - See more at:
Sounds like you should be against fracking! I know what you mean though…

The newer, more environmentally friendly technologies generally cost more than the legacy equipment they would replace. Extracting natural gas with water-free fracking, for example, could cost 25 percent more than conventional fracking, according to David Burnett, a professor of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University who heads that school's Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program

A measly 25%!!! Hasn’t fracking almost halved US gas prices?
Green fracking can be afforded, not least as its extra costs will almost certainly fall with economies of scale.

Providing you could contaminated water from the process, I’ll back it. I’ve thought to myself that instead of water, maybe using compressed C02 to break rock would work. Obviously one could use air, but you’d have to be careful about explosions.

Elathen: First you side track from the topic by accusing the source of not saying something it clearly said. I’ve seen this tactic used by others employed here…

Then you said…

So they are telling the state what they use, so there is transparency with the state, but they don't want other fracking companies to know. I'm fine with that. - See more at:
Which deliberately misses my point, which is: Other fracking companies already know do fracking profitably, that it’s not a crime to use unpatented technology, and whilst industrial espionage might be a crime, it’s a rampant one because billionaires don’t get caught simply through employing portioning steps “of plausible deniability”.

So: I don’t accept the truth is how you characterize it. If at least you do, then please lets debate on whether the primary reason fracking companies wanting secrecy isn’t commercialism, but simply the political backlashes against their toxic methods.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in