EPA admitts that CO2 isn't a health threat

[alienlovechild 75]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

[Ban Hammer 13,150]

hopefully, the libs will stop breathing to help cut down on co2.

[scandal 951]

Nice, Gary. On this one I'll grade you an A-. Mainly because you cite a relevant reference, but it would be nice to hear your own commentary as well.

Ok, let's deconstruct a little, shall we?

Your cited author correctly identifies the "general welfare clause in Article.I, Section.viii as the fundamental basis for Social Security. And he correctly cites Helvering v. Davis as one of the two Supreme court cases that ruled on the constitutionality of the Act (the other case was Steward Machine Co. v. Davis).

Here's his problem though:

Under the Helvering v. Davis decision, the Court basically declared that Congress has the subjective authority, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare what constitutes the general welfare irrespective of whether that determination corresponds to the specific legislative grants of power contained in the Constitution. Not only was this contrary to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers, which are the foundation of the Constitution, but it was also contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare phrase.

In the author's opinion, the Supreme Court, in 1937, was simply looking for a way to expand federal power and escape FDR's threat to restructure the Court. Since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the constitutional authority to define the extent of the powers granted to the federal government or amend the Constitution from the bench by changing the meaning of words, this matter remains, in the author's opinion, unresolved. Therefore, it is important to re-examine this issue and establish the true meaning of the general welfare phrase as it relates to Social Security.

See, what's wrong with this is that your author only prefaces "In the author's opinion..." for the second paragraph. In fact, the first paragraph is also simply his opinion. To which he's entitled. But it does not make the things in the firs paragraph facts:

- He believes that "the Court basically declared that Congress had .. authority.. unrestrained by the judiciary..." . That's simply not true. The court made a narrow ruling which upheld the Social Security Act. The court did not abdicate generally its judicial oversight on Congress. To this day the Court continues to strike down legislation passed by Congress under the "general welfare" clause when the Court sees fit to do so.

- He believes that ".. this was contrary to principles of limited government.... contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare clause." He can believe that. It's his opinion, nothing more. The Court acted narrowly. The Court has had many, many opportunities since Helvering v. Davis in 1937 to reexamine the constitutionality of the SSA, and has never struck it down. That's how the system works - Congress makes a Law, the President signs it, the Court upholds it - it's law, baby. Like it or not.

Moving on to his second paragraph (in which the author at least makes it clear that these are nothing more than his personal opinions), he claims that the Court was politically motivated to help FDR and was making law from the Bench. Let's examine that, shall we? The very same Court had been striking down earlier New Deal legislation (Railroad Retirement Act, Agriculture Adjustment Act, etc.) This was hardly a Court friendly to FDR or the New Deal. So much so that FDR infamously tried - and failed - to pack the Court in 1937 to tilt its balance in his favor. The Court that ruled on Helvering v. Davis was one that had just been spurned by FDR and if motivated by anything other than pure legal jurisprudence, it was to HURT FDR, not help him! Since SSA was not struck down when so much else of New Deal legislation was overturned, one can only surmise that the Court could not find any Constitutional grounds to do so.

The rest of your author's article all stems from this one critique , namely that the Court acted politically as an Activist bench. This is a common refrain from the Right when it suits them (Roe V. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.).

In point of fact, one man's "strict interpretationist" is another man's "activist judge". It all depends on your perspective.

We have one system, like it or not. And it's worked for 230+ years.

If the Supreme Court has ruled, and has not revisited and overturned its ruling, then it's legal, and it's constitutional. You may not have to like the result. You may act to change or overturn it by voting for a Congress that will nullify a Law you don't like. But until it's overturned - it's perfectly legal.

[GaryC 7]

Nice, Gary. On this one I'll grade you an A-. Mainly because you cite a relevant reference, but it would be nice to hear your own commentary as well.

Ok, let's deconstruct a little, shall we?

Your cited author correctly identifies the "general welfare clause in Article.I, Section.viii as the fundamental basis for Social Security. And he correctly cites Helvering v. Davis as one of the two Supreme court cases that ruled on the constitutionality of the Act (the other case was Steward Machine Co. v. Davis).

Here's his problem though:

Under the Helvering v. Davis decision, the Court basically declared that Congress has the subjective authority, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare what constitutes the general welfare irrespective of whether that determination corresponds to the specific legislative grants of power contained in the Constitution. Not only was this contrary to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers, which are the foundation of the Constitution, but it was also contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare phrase.

In the author's opinion, the Supreme Court, in 1937, was simply looking for a way to expand federal power and escape FDR's threat to restructure the Court. Since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the constitutional authority to define the extent of the powers granted to the federal government or amend the Constitution from the bench by changing the meaning of words, this matter remains, in the author's opinion, unresolved. Therefore, it is important to re-examine this issue and establish the true meaning of the general welfare phrase as it relates to Social Security.

See, what's wrong with this is that your author only prefaces "In the author's opinion..." for the second paragraph. In fact, the first paragraph is also simply his opinion. To which he's entitled. But it does not make the things in the firs paragraph facts:

- He believes that "the Court basically declared that Congress had .. authority.. unrestrained by the judiciary..." . That's simply not true. The court made a narrow ruling which upheld the Social Security Act. The court did not abdicate generally its judicial oversight on Congress. To this day the Court continues to strike down legislation passed by Congress under the "general welfare" clause when the Court sees fit to do so.

- He believes that ".. this was contrary to principles of limited government.... contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare clause." He can believe that. It's his opinion, nothing more. The Court acted narrowly. The Court has had many, many opportunities since Helvering v. Davis in 1937 to reexamine the constitutionality of the SSA, and has never struck it down. That's how the system works - Congress makes a Law, the President signs it, the Court upholds it - it's law, baby. Like it or not.

Moving on to his second paragraph (in which the author at least makes it clear that these are nothing more than his personal opinions), he claims that the Court was politically motivated to help FDR and was making law from the Bench. Let's examine that, shall we? The very same Court had been striking down earlier New Deal legislation (Railroad Retirement Act, Agriculture Adjustment Act, etc.) This was hardly a Court friendly to FDR or the New Deal. So much so that FDR infamously tried - and failed - to pack the Court in 1937 to tilt its balance in his favor. The Court that ruled on Helvering v. Davis was one that had just been spurned by FDR and if motivated by anything other than pure legal jurisprudence, it was to HURT FDR, not help him! Since SSA was not struck down when so much else of New Deal legislation was overturned, one can only surmise that the Court could not find any Constitutional grounds to do so.

The rest of your author's article all stems from this one critique , namely that the Court acted politically as an Activist bench. This is a common refrain from the Right when it suits them (Roe V. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.).

In point of fact, one man's "strict interpretationist" is another man's "activist judge". It all depends on your perspective.

We have one system, like it or not. And it's worked for 230+ years.

If the Supreme Court has ruled, and has not revisited and overturned its ruling, then it's legal, and it's constitutional. You may not have to like the result. You may act to change or overturn it by voting for a Congress that will nullify a Law you don't like. But until it's overturned - it's perfectly legal.

I have neither the time or inclination to debate constitutional law on this board. Lets just say that there had to be some "creative" interpretations of the constitution to make these social programs legal. It can also be said that people that are much better versed in constitutional law that either of us have very serious reservations on that creative interpretation. In the end, the law didn't win out, politics did.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

[Ban Hammer 13,150]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

and that's your best answer to the question?

[scandal 951]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

and that's your best answer to the question?

What would happen if I answered your question with a question?

[Ban Hammer 13,150]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

and that's your best answer to the question?

What would happen if I answered your question with a question?

as soon as you can snatch the toilet paper from my hand, then it will be time for you to go, grasshopper.

[scandal 951]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

and that's your best answer to the question?

What would happen if I answered your question with a question?

as soon as you can snatch the toilet paper from my hand, then it will be time for you to go, grasshopper.

[NickD 202]

hopefully, the libs will stop breathing to help cut down on co2.

We went north last summer in WI, wasn't safe, millions or trees grabbed us just to get a little CO2 when we exhaled. That tree line goes clear up to the edges of the Arctic Circle, tree after tree after tree. I can see where Washington DC may have an excess of CO2, but not around here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

CO2 by itself is only a toxic substance hazardous to health if you're on a submarine.

That's not the same as saying that changes resulting from climate change may result in increased risks of disease transmission because of increased temperatures and/or humidity.

[scandal 951]

CO2 by itself is only a toxic substance hazardous to health if you're on a submarine.

That's not the same as saying that changes resulting from climate change may result in increased risks of disease transmission because of increased temperatures and/or humidity.

or drowning

[Peikko 1,575]

The study published in the Lancet mentions quite a few health hazards, including heat waves, and probably most worrying the spread of insect born disease outside its conventionally recognised areas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The study published in the Lancet mentions quite a few health hazards, including heat waves, and probably most worrying the spread of insect born disease outside its conventionally recognised areas.

Right - stuff that would result from global warming generally, not directly from C02.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Edited May 14, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano