Current Event

According to the Wall Street Journal on June 14, 2010 (full article available on-line)

Concern over the nation's mounting debt could snarl the passage of President Barack Obama's proposal to provide more aid to state and local governments.

Mr. Obama on Saturday sent a letter to lawmakers calling for swift action to help small businesses and state and local governments facing budget cuts following the economic downturn. He didn't specify in the letter where funds would come from, but he said he had called for a three-year freeze in non-security discretionary spending.

………..

The letter said budget cuts at the state and local levels were leading to "massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters," and that 84,000 jobs in state and local governments had already been lost this year. Mr. Obama said "hundreds of thousands of additional jobs" could be lost if action wasn't taken, according to the letter.

The issue poses a quandary for policymakers, who want to boost the economy and create more jobs ahead of midterm elections in November, but who worry about increasing the federal government's record budget deficits. Polls have suggested that voters are concerned about both issues.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking Sunday about Mr. Obama's letter, criticized the "spending spree" in Washington. "It's just putting more debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids," Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio) told ABC News's "This Week."

………………..

So far this fiscal year, the federal government has spent $935.61 billion more than it made, with four months left to go. The U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008.

In response to falling revenue from sales and income taxes, states have reduced spending and lifted taxes and fees during the past two budget years. Unlike the federal government, all U.S. states except Vermont have at least a limited requirement to balance their budgets.

…

VS

Federal actions vs Legislative and Executive branch Authority

Founding Document

The US Constitution, The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

We have allowed politicians to manipulate employment for votes and have therefore invited them to place their political careers above the long-term best interest of the country.   Such short-sightedness will surely harm our children.  Such conflicts-of-interest are why that authority is not granted in the Constitution.

Current Event

According to the New York Times; July 6, 2010 (full article available on-line)

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Arizona to challenge a new state law intended to combat illegal immigration, arguing that it would undermine the federal government’s pursuit of terrorists, gang members and other criminal immigrants.

……

White House officials said Mr. Obama was not involved in the Justice Department’s decision to sue. But the suit came after steps by Mr. Obama in an effort to frame the immigration debate in terms that will favor Democrats in advance of midterm elections in November, including a speech on Thursday when he restated his commitment to overhaul legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

……

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to the Washington Post, July 6, 2010

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to FoxNews; September 4, 2010 (full article available on-line)

PHOENIX -- Nearly a dozen states have filed a legal brief in support of Arizona's controversial immigration law.

A"friend of the court" brief filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday argues that a federal judge was wrong to block implementation of key provisions of the law.

The brief submitted by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard to rule on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction.

It also says the judge erred in ruling that the law interferes with the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities.

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia joined in the filing.

…..

VS

The executive branch vs. several states

Founding Document

US Constitution, second paragraph of Article VI – (Supremacy Clause)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Federalist number 27, Alexander Hamilton quote: 

"It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of, all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each state, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government, as far as its just constitutional authority extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws. Any man, who will pursue, by his own reflections, the consequences of the situation, will perceive, that if its powers are administered with a common prudence, there is good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the union."

We the People:

According the US Immigration Support website, aliens must carry their “green card” at all times.  The Arizona law apparently mirrors the pertinent federal immigration law.  If there is no difference, Arizona is not violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

Notice how our president concentrates on race. This diverts attention, presumes bias and therefore the guilt of Arizona law enforcement officials, and divides us for political gain.  Since the executive branch is responsible for law enforcement, I would prefer that he focus on the word “illegal”.

Current Event

According to CBS News, August 16, 2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was prompted today to state that he thinks the so-called "ground zero mosque" should be built somewhere else.

Republicans have threatened to make the mosque debate a 2010 campaign issue, and a few candidates -- including Reid's challenger Sharron Angle -- are beginning to do so.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," Reid's spokesperson said in a statement today. "Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."

Many conservatives have long decried the decision by New York City officials to allow for the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque a few blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Obama weighed in on the discussion on Friday, defending Muslims' religious freedom, which includes "the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

………..

- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to CBSNews, August 18, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is raising questions about who is funding criticism of the so-called "Ground Zero mosque."  Pelosi told KCBS is San Francisco yesterday that she joins "those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded." She added: "How is this being ginned up?"

In a follow-up statement today on the project - an Islamic cultural center that includes a mosque called the Cordoba House that would be built two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks - Pelosi said the location of the project is a "local decision," though "the freedom of religion is a Constitutional right."

…….

VS

New York State Constitution vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 3

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

We the People:

This is not a federal matter. The first amendment of the US Constitution only restricts Congress from forming a national religion and only prohibits Congress from creating law which impinges upon the exercise thereof.  By the tenth amendment, the US Constitution yields to the individual states the discretion to form state religions, or to restrict religious activities.  State religions are thankfully banned in (presumably) all state constitutions.  Likewise, religious restrictions are left to local and state governments.  Article 1 of the New York State Constitution indeed addresses the issue at hand by prohibiting discrimination or preference.

Current Event

According to the Journal Sentinel; August 29 (full article available on-line)

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Gov. Jim Doyle on Thursday portrayed a planned Milwaukee-to-Madison high-speed rail line as an unstoppable train that Republican gubernatorial candidates can't derail.

"High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin," LaHood said. "There's no stopping it."

LaHood was in Watertown to sign an agreement to release $46.7 million of the million in federal stimulus money that Wisconsin is receiving to build the $810 line, which is to start service at 79 mph in 2013 and reach 110 mph by 2015.

……

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Lakeland Times; July 24, 2009

The word coordinate has been around for quite a while, since at least the mid-seventeenth century, but its application as a strategy to protect property rights is relatively new.

Now, a number of communities across the nation, and a growing group here in Wisconsin, are using the concept to force federal and state agencies to coordinate, or work integrally, with them in planning land-use projects.

Simply put, a mandate for government agencies to coordinate with local governments is found in most federal land-use statutes and agency regulations, and in many state statutes. According to a Standing Ground white paper published last year by the groups Stewards of the Range - a pro-property rights organization - and the American Land Foundation, coordination was first required in a federal land use statute in 1976, in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and has been included in every federal land use legislation since.

VS

Federal Control vs. State Control

Founding Document

US Constitution, 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

Too many Washington officials expect us to ignore the Constitutional limitations to their authority.

Current Event

According to an opinion article written in the Wall Street Journal; April 30,2010

The ACLU Approves Limits on Speech

If that headline has a certain man bites dog quality, it's because for almost 40 years the ACLU was the one major liberal organization that opposed campaign finance restrictions as violating the First Amendment. Although it supported disclosure of large contributions to candidates and public financing of campaigns to facilitate more speech, it resolutely opposed any limits on campaign giving and spending—including limits "voluntarily" accepted as the price of taking public funding.

Expenditures by candidates (including of their own funds), contributions, advertising by political parties, labor unions, nonprofit organizations and even business corporations were all viewed by the ACLU as embodying fundamental constitutional rights. As a result, its policy was clear and concise: "Limitations on contributions or expenditures made by individuals or organizations for the purpose of advocating causes or candidates in the public forum impinge directly on freedom of speech and association. Their implementation poses serious dangers to the First Amendment. They should be opposed in candidate as well as referenda elections." Until now.

Over the objections of some key senior staff and by a very narrow vote, the ACLU National Board of Directors rejected core aspects of that longstanding policy earlier this month.

The organization will now accept "reasonable" government limitations on contributions to candidates. The ACLU doesn't say what "reasonable" means, so the government will doubtless supply the definition. This will inevitably benefit those who are already elected and disadvantage challengers. Indeed, for 35 years "reasonable" limits on contributions have demonstrably helped incumbents and suppressed insurgent candidates.

……

The ACLU has also endorsed government limits on spending by candidates who accept public financing. Here, too, restrictions will empower incumbents by forcing challengers to agree to limit their campaigns in order to get public funding. This is precisely why Barack Obama rejected such limits for his presidential campaign. But now he and the ACLU will support imposing them on others.

Incumbents love contribution limits and public financing schemes that require challengers to accept contribution limits because the less speech challengers have, the better off incumbents are. In effect, under the ACLU's new policy, insurgent candidates will be forced to waive their right to more speech as a condition of accepting public financing, which will never be set at levels sufficient to generate a viable challenge.

…..

Nonetheless, we've come to this: The premier First Amendment organization in America now favors limitations on the First Amendment in the area in which all agree it must have its most powerful application—political speech during election campaigns.

…..

VS

ACLU vs. The First Amendment

Founding Document

US Constitution; First Amendment:

Quote of Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804: "The firmness with which the people have withstood the... abuses of the press, the discernment they have manifested between truth and falsehood, show that they may safely be trusted to hear everything true and false and to form a correct judgment between them."  

We the People:

Thomas Jefferson trusted the people to discern the message regardless of who paid it.  By a slim majority of its leaders, the ACLU now trusts the power-hungry government officials to define “reasonable” limitations on funding speech.

Current Event

According to the New York Times on June 17, 2010 (full article available on-line)

…....

“I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Mr. Barton said in his opening statement. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation (BP) can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown.”

Democrats, smelling blood in an election year, sought to make Mr. Barton an exemplar for Republican ties to “Big Oil.” House Republican leaders, fearing that trap, rushed to contain the damage.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip, summoned Mr. Barton and he “was told to apologize, immediately, or he would lose his spot, immediately,” a senior aide said. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

When Mr. Barton soon did issue a statement of contrition, Mr. Boehner’s office also distributed it, for added effect. Then Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor and another party leader, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, together publicly rebuked their colleague.

Mr. Barton, in his statement, apologized “for using the term ‘shakedown’ ” to describe the $20 billion escrow account that BP and the White House announced Wednesday. He also retracted the apology to BP and said the company “should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico” on April 20 and “fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt.” ……………………

The Democratic National Committee quickly produced a YouTube video that repeatedly shows Mr. Barton, in a split screen with the BP chief, saying, “I apologize.” The White House piled on. The press secretary, Robert Gibbs, issued a statement calling Mr. Barton’s comments “shameful” and later wrote on his Twitter account: “Who would the G.O.P. put in charge of overseeing the energy industry & Big Oil if they won control of Congress? Yup, u guessed it — JOE BARTON.”

…………

VS

Judicial branch vs. Executive branch

Founding Document

The US Constitution: Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We the People:

The authority to confiscate property is vested only in the judicial branch. Representative Barton was expressing his disgust toward our president’s violation of our Constitution.   This is an example of how Constitutional compliance is lost in politics.  Each branch of the federal government is charged to check the power abuses of the other branches. We have lowered our expectations for the Democratic Party because of partisanship; but why would the Republicans in Congress shirk this responsibility and abandon one of their own?  Perhaps not enough of the people are expressing their expectations to either party.

Current Event

Excerpts from a transcript of MEET THE PRESS on May 16, 2010

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice. Here she is back in 1993 in the committee room. She worked, of course, for Senator Biden, who was chairman at the time. There she is. And she had--she saw it up close, and she had some pretty direct things to say about it. This was an article she penned for the University of Chicago Law Review, during which she said, in recent hearings--"If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. ... When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public." You've met with her. With that in mind, do you think she is prepared to reveal more than she might otherwise about her legal views and philosophy?

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. I think that's the right thing to do. I said that when there were Republican nominees from George Bush, and I believe it with Democratic nominees. These hearings should not be a farce and should not be, "What's your favorite movie or restaurant?" They should talk about judicial ideology and philosophy. Obviously, you can't pin--try to pin someone down on what might be an upcoming case. But knowing how they think, how they reason, what's their view of settled law, these are all very legitimate questions, and the hearings would be much less if they weren't asked.

………..
MR. GREGORY: Just remind people, this was about political contributions.
SEN. SCHUMER: This is the case that said unlimited corporate money could flow into our politics undisclosed in any way, and it's really--I mean, the First Amendment's important, but so is the sanctity of our political process, so that the average person has a say. And I was shocked at this. Maybe a Kagan on the court could have persuaded a Justice Kennedy that the practical--you know, the abstract notion of First Amendment triumphs everything has a balance, and the balance is the practical effects of that. And my hope would be she would do it, and that's what I'm looking for.

VS

Free speech vs. Congressional Authority

Founding Document

US Constitution: first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We the People:

Senator Schumer suggests compromising the first amendment.  Who would determine where that “balance” of free speech should be?   Would it be the party in power or Elena Kagan?  No branch of the federal government has this authority, and we must never allow them to achieve it.

Current Event

According to the Journal Sentinel June 7, 2010

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore quietly has signed on to legislation that would weaken an independent ethics board that she once supported.

The Milwaukee Democrat was one of 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who introduced a resolution late last month that would restrict the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics, created by Democrats after regaining control of Congress. Moore voted to create the office in 2008. The independent panel is composed of former lawmakers and other experts chosen by congressional leaders.

The move follows the ethics office's investigation of eight black caucus members over a privately funded trip to the Caribbean. Moore was not cited in that investigation.

The resolution would prevent the office from looking into cases except in instances where they receive sworn complaints from a citizen asserting personal knowledge of alleged violations. It would also prevent the ethics committee from issuing public statements in cases where the complaints are dismissed.

According to the Journal Sentinel on Posted: April 5,

Washington — With health care reform notched on his belt, President Barack Obama faces tough odds when it comes to enacting the rest of his ambitious political agenda.

Democrats are too spent; Republicans are too angry.

"I wouldn't expect anything major with the exception of the financial regulation reform Obama has been pushing for," said Michele Swers, a political scientist at laceName w:st="on">GeorgetownlaceName> laceType w:st="on">UniversitylaceType>. "Something like cap and trade I don't see happening. Immigration I don't see happening. Obama has used up the political capital that he has with the Democrats to get them to do tough things before an election."

……..

Obama and other Democrats are framing the issue as a necessary step to protect average Americans from the Wall Street excesses that contributed to the global economic meltdown. They want to set up a new consumer financial protection agency, begin regulating derivatives and other risky financial instruments and create a new authority that could dismantle financial companies that threaten to bring down the nation's financial system.

"There is a lot of resistance to it, but we're going to have to regulate these financial markets," said Rep. Gwen Moore, a Milwaukee Democrat who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. "There has got to be some consumer confidence restored."

…….

VS

Federal regulation over private business vs. regulation of government.

Founding Document

US Constitution, Tenth Amendment

We the People:

Representative Moore voted to exceed Congressional authority by regulating the healthcare system, and favors overreaching regulation of the private financial markets.  And yet she resends authority over a government agency.  Why would such an official protect the government from the people instead of protecting the people from the government?  Power!

Current Event

From CBCNews.com, June 15, 2010( full text available on-line)

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.

…………………….

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response is, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That's why the second thing we're focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers -- even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists might start coming back. The sadness and the anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

……………

VS

Executive authority vs. the Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II Section 2 (the powers of the presidency)

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 –

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

Article II itemizes the limits of executive authority.  In violation of that and the separation of powers principle, our president violated the constitution by ordering the confiscation of private property without due process from the courts.  Our ancestors rebelled against such authoritarianism.

Current Event

According to the New York Times on June 10, 2010 (full article available on-line)

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases as lawmakers road-tested arguments for a future fight over climate change legislation.

The Senate voted 53-47 to reject an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, to block the E.P.A. from imposing new limits on carbon emissions based on its 2009 finding that such gases from industry, vehicles and other sources represent a threat to human health and the environment.

Ms. Murkowski and others, including six Democrats, contended that the E.P.A. was engaging in a bureaucratic power grab and usurping Congressional authority with regulations that would stifle the economy and kill jobs.

“The sweeping powers being pursued by the E.P.A. are the worst possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ms. Murkowski, who tried to thwart the agency’s action using a rarely employed procedure called a resolution of disapproval.

The resolution of disapproval, created in a 1996 law, is a vehicle to allow Congress to overturn an executive branch action and is not subject to filibuster in the Senate. It is seldom used, however, due to the likelihood of a veto.

Democratic opponents of the Murkowski proposal said its backers were protecting oil companies and other industrial interests at the expense of public welfare and were ignoring science that substantiated the hazards of greenhouse gas emissions. They said Ms. Murkowski and her allies wanted to prevent the E.P.A. from taking action while simultaneously stalling Congressional action, essentially protecting the status quo.

………..

Supporters of the plan to block the E.P.A. said they were trying to stop a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to regulate carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to weigh in. They said the E.P.A. approach would produce little environmental reward while putting the United States at a severe disadvantage to nations that were not imposing such controls on their own industries.

VS.

Abuse of the Clean Air Act vs. the people

Founding Document

The Constitution, Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person."
--Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu¹

We the People:

Only Congress, not the executive branch) has the authority to define a pollutant through law.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.gov) website, “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants” ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html ), carbon dioxide is not a listed pollutant.   So the executive branch, which is responsible for law enforcement, is violating a law.   And the peoples’ house, the House of Representatives is silent; as the states’ house, the Senate, blocks this challenge.  People, our government is out of our control.