reply to post by jdub297
It would be a mistake to presume that any ruling made by SCOTUS is an inextricable law that in effect becomes a fixture of
stare decisis and
can not be overturned, even by the very same Court that made the ruling decided in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497
(2007). Indeed, The Bush administrations assertion that it would ignore the Supreme Courts ruling in the event it ruled against them only serves to
illustrate the dubious effect a Supreme Court ruling has in such matters.
Indeed, the famous SCOTUS ruling of Worcester v. Georgia where the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no right to impose its laws upon Cherokee
tribal lands, (a ruling I believe was correct in its reasoning), comes with the legend that Andrew Jackson declared these words after the ruling:
""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
While it remains disputed that Jackson actually said this, that the legend persists is due to the very real Constitutional fact that SCOTUS does not
have any authority to enforce its own rulings. The enforcement of legislation is primarily a function of the Executive branches of government.
That the Obama administration is clearly willing to enforce the SCOTUS ruling rendered in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, is and
should be a concern for the people and due to this ruling it may seem that it would be necessary to bring the case back to the Supreme Court and argue
for a reversal of this ruling. That, however, would be a necessity for those who have all ready through certain licensing schemes and other such
contracts granted jurisdiction to the EPA to begin with.
A genuine concern for the people of the United States is that by agreeing to the licensing schemes and registration requirements of state DMV's they
have in effect granted jurisdiction to the EPA and the peoples gradual loss of rights and the ability to enjoy those rights can, in a large part, be
traced back to the imprudent willingness to go into agreement with questionable licensing schemes. While virtually every DMV across the nation
asserts that driving is a privilege and not a right, this is merely an assertion being made by them and since they are the ones asserting it, it is
incumbent upon this agency to prove it. However, as long as people continue to voluntarily enter into an agreement with this administrative agency,
the point is moot.
Back to the aforementioned Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, this ruling is, as most SCOTUS rulings are, very narrow in that ruling
and only pertains to the facts of the case. The facts are these: Because the EPA itself had made the determination that they did not have any legal
authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, 12 states and several Cities within the U.S. brought suit against the EPA in order to
compel them to regulate Co2 and other "greenhouse gasses".
The 5-4 ruling, and the numbers there should make clear that this was not a unanimous ruling by any stretch of the imagination, was predicated on the
assumption that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant." Such language only serves to
illustrate the inherent flaw in their ruling which is vague and easily contestable. The so called "greenhouse" gasses declared by that ruling to be
a "pollutant" are in fact, necessary to the ecosystem of this planet.
The so called "greenhouse gasses", (the term itself being too vague and misleading since what is being described by the term in no way duplicates
the actual process of a greenhouse), is a natural and necessary component of to the facilitation of life. Without this natural phenomenon, the
planet would be too cold to sustain much of the life that exists on the planet today. When the term "greenhouse gas" is being used within the
context of the ruling it means an dangerous rise in these gasses that has been argued to cause yet another capricious term "global warming".
Global warming, in its simplest and most natural state would be either the periods of ages that exist in between ice ages or the day to day natural
warmth that would be caused by the rising of the sun. This is why the term is capricious in the current political debate over anthropogenic global
warming which is a hypothesis based upon computer models that humans are affecting a rise in global temperatures. This is why in recent years the
term has been modified and changed and often times referred to as "climate change" even yet another capricious term.
The capriciousness of such terminology gives standing to any individual whether they be a licensed manufacturer of cement or or power or just an
ordinary citizen who recognizes that their rights to life, liberty and property or and/or the pursuit of happiness are being harmed by overarching
presumption of authority by an administrative agency. It matters not this agency was instructed by the Supreme Court to review its contention that it
has no authority to regulate Co2, nor does it matter that the Executive branch whether it be the Obama administration or any future Presidency would
instruct the EPA to regulate C02. It is in the nature of government officials to act as ambitious politicians do, and that is to presume they have
authority they may or may not have. If the people do not contest this presumption then that presumed authority has been met with tacit approval at
the very least.
An abrogation or derogation of a right has long been held in American jurisprudence to be injurious. If the EPA in fact holds that "greenhouse
gasses" contribute to "AGW" or "climate change" it is incumbent upon them to prove it actually does this. Given the current "AGW" debate , and
debate by definition means there are indeed opposing views on the matter, it shows there is standing to challenge the EPA and even the Supreme Court
ruling in regards to this matter. The remedy in such a challenge should be clear. The Supreme Court would have to reverse their ruling and admit
that they or the Court that issued the ruling erred and that the EPA does not have any authority to regulate a natural and necessary gas that is
demonstrably necessary to life itself. Any regulation of Co2 that leads to taxation or other intrusiveness is arguably injurious.
